There are some people in the pro-Russian altsphere, especially those who don’t live here, who love to waxlyrical about the “Orthodox-Islamic civilizational alliance” or some such thing.

There’s only one problem with it: It’s complete codswallop.

Oh well, it’s not anything that a few more arrests of Russian nationalists under Article 282 won’t solve. Because as Putin himself pointed out after the 2013 Volgograd bombings, “Islam is a striking element of the Russian cultural code.”

I have a friend here who made the observation that for all the current differences in perception – Merkel as a globalist stooge, Putin as an icon of the Alt Right – historians in fifty years might regard both of them in similar terms: As politicians who helped enable the Islamization of their respective countries. I am not sure that he is entirely wrong.

PS. Standard response to terrorist attacks in Russia: Westerners try to blame Putin while Putin tries to avoid blaming Islam, just like Westerners.

UPDATE: The purported organizer of the SPB bombings captured from CCTV footage. Sure looks like a CIA-financed liberal Navalny supporter/Kremlin FSB operative [cross out as per your specific mental illness) to me!

Has turned up at a police station and declared himself innocent. With an appearance like that, it’s not surprising that the media jumped on him as the likeliest suspect.

UPDATE 2: The terrorist has been identified as Akbardzhon Djalilov (Акбарджон Джалилов), a 23 year old man with known ties to radical Islamists.

He was acting on his own and blew himself up.

He was born in Kyrgyzstan, has an Uzbek or Tajik name, and a Russian passport. In other words, a perfect representative of Russian multiculturalism.

After seeing the US Senate hearings on Russian interference, I have to entertain the possibility the bombing was done at the direction of some of the malicious, misanthropic and now existentially threatened freaks inhabiting “our” intel community:

Agreed. I also find very peculiar how the biggest anti-government protests in Russia in years coincide with the biggest terrorist attack in Russia in years. This looks like systematic program of destabilisation or, dare I say it, hybrid warfare.

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

After seeing the US Senate hearings on Russian interference, I have to entertain the possibility the bombing was done at the direction of some of the malicious, misanthropic and now existentially threatened freaks inhabiting "our" intel community:

Agreed. I also find very peculiar how the biggest anti-government protests in Russia in years coincide with the biggest terrorist attack in Russia in years. This looks like systematic program of destabilisation or, dare I say it, hybrid warfare.

Agreed. I also find very peculiar how the biggest anti-government protests in Russia in years coincide with the biggest terrorist attack in Russia in years. This looks like systematic program of destabilisation or, dare I say it, hybrid warfare.

Yes. Unless the Washington establishment are the most performance artists ever seen, they seem to genuinely believe they’re under attack from Russia right now.

I think that is true. However the thing about Islam (or maybe the people from certain regions of the world that happen to be Muslim) is they kick off early - they're an early warning of what is to come.

If westerners knew at least 10 percent about Putin’s views/positions, he would neither be unreservedly praised by the AltRight nor hysterically maligned by the left. The thing is, most journalists probably know, which makes them even more despicable than if they were simply ignorant.

Putin’s daughters?
1 is married to a South Korean.
The other to an oligarch whose surname turns up only an Israeli politician.

That said, the South Korean marriage is an urban legend. Putin's younger daughter is the gf of a Dutch businessman who used to work at Gazprom. The elder daughter is married to Kirill Shalamov, the son of a Jewish oligarch (the Trump comparisons keep piling on).

There are some people in the pro-Russian altsphere, especially those who don’t live here, who love to wax lyrical about the “Orthodox-Islamic civilizational alliance” or some such thing.

They do exist but are a fringe element. There is a problem with Islam in Russia, even this shapoklyak Irina Yarovaya, who speaks mostly in pep platitudes, had to openly admit on Solovyov’s show, and I quote: “We do have a problem with Islam”. Having said that and not being Putin’s fanboy, I have to give him a benefit of a doubt since he can not simply come out and start making statements about containment of Islam–in the end, there are two strategic and rather “moderate” and extremely well-integrated regions of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan which are in the heart of Russia. Caucasus is a separate story and the issue of Second War in Chechnya is a very complex one since Putin made a huge mistake there, despite the better advice of Russian military in early 2000s. Albeit, he had an excuse for this mistake.

As per your friend: I wouldn’t put Putin and Merkel in the same universe. History will judge them very differently.

No, it's not. CIA's ties to Islamic radicals are well documented. US uses Muslim terrorists as tools to destabilise countries they dislike. Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia - the world's number 1 sponsor of terrorism - is a close US ally.

akarlin, what do you think blaming Islam would accomplish? There are millions of Muslims in Russia, but, for most of them, their connection to their Islamic identity is pretty weak. Attacking Muslims as a group will reinforce their sense of identity.

I seriously have to ask: what is your endgame? Border wall with Tatarstan?

If westerners knew at least 10 percent about Putin's views/positions, he would neither be unreservedly praised by the AltRight nor hysterically maligned by the left. The thing is, most journalists probably know, which makes them even more despicable than if they were simply ignorant.

Putin's daughters?
1 is married to a South Korean.
The other to an oligarch whose surname turns up only an Israeli politician.

Does not sound like the girls were raised racist, does it?

You are essentially right.

That said, the South Korean marriage is an urban legend. Putin’s younger daughter is the gf of a Dutch businessman who used to work at Gazprom. The elder daughter is married to Kirill Shalamov, the son of a Jewish oligarch (the Trump comparisons keep piling on).

akarlin, what do you think blaming Islam would accomplish? There are millions of Muslims in Russia, but, for most of them, their connection to their Islamic identity is pretty weak. Attacking Muslims as a group will reinforce their sense of identity.

I seriously have to ask: what is your endgame? Border wall with Tatarstan?

I’m not akarlin but a good start would be stopping unrestricted immigration from the former Soviet -stans.

No, it’s not. CIA’s ties to Islamic radicals are well documented. US uses Muslim terrorists as tools to destabilise countries they dislike. Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia – the world’s number 1 sponsor of terrorism – is a close US ally.

No, it's not. CIA's ties to Islamic radicals are well documented. US uses Muslim terrorists as tools to destabilise countries they dislike. Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia - the world's number 1 sponsor of terrorism - is a close US ally.

Yes, the bombing could easily have been done by Muslims, for Muslim motives but with the time and place chosen by their Washington patrons.

akarlin, what do you think blaming Islam would accomplish? There are millions of Muslims in Russia, but, for most of them, their connection to their Islamic identity is pretty weak. Attacking Muslims as a group will reinforce their sense of identity.

I seriously have to ask: what is your endgame? Border wall with Tatarstan?

For a start:

(1) Stop sweeping away these discussions under a carpet (especially hypocritical while trolling Gayrope about their Islamic fetish).

(2) The incessant submission to political Islamic demands, e.g. allowing hijabs as happened just days ago in Mordovia.

2&3 are good ideas, and worth doing, though mostly unrelated to the problem at hand. And if we are going to have a discussion about Islam, it must be carefully controlled to avoid inflaming sectarian tensions.

Couple of points. These discussions should totally not be swept under the rug but be done with full honesty and detail. I believe that is what Felix is asking for. Everyone who takes the subject seriously recognizes the different between the Salafi-Wahhabi extremist strains (which often serve as shock troops for Western governments) and normative Islam (ones that are deeply rooted in traditional Orthodox scholarship, Sufi brotherhoods, etc.). In fact, most Muslim populations don't want much to do with these extremists since they have a penchant for blowing themselves up within our own Friday prayers, funeral processions, etc. If the question is, how does one distinguish between the two, then that is a very reasonable question.

How is 'allowing hijabs' a political demand (note, I can't read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long. Many of the Cossacks and rural folk still keep this tradition. Please tell me what you get when you look up images for 'Mordovia traditional female dress'. Should not reasonable (note, I said reasonable) accommodations be made for religious minorities? Should Orthodox Christian women be forced to cover up in conservative societies like Jordan?

You aren't serious on the border wall are you? How long are we talking and does Russia really have the finances for something like this? The visa thing sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately Russia has a large indigenous Muslim population. Nothing bad to say about Tatars and Bashkirs, but the North Caucasus Muslim tribes are a problem for Russia. The perpetrator of St.Petersburg terrorist attack is likely a North Caucasus Muslim too (in the surveillance video it looked like a Chechen/Ingush).

In retrospect Russia should have done in Northern Caucasus what Europeans did in North America, and re-populate the region with Orthodox Christians. Now it’s too late unless another Stalin rises to power in Russia. Russia is stuck with Northern Caucasus and its problems.

Besides, I would not blame the West without evidence. This type of terrorist attack is pretty easy to plan and execute without foreign help. There are thousands of North Caucasus muslims living in St.Petersburg. All it takes is one individual who knows how to build a bomb. Anders Behring Breivik killed more than 100 people all by himself.

2&3 are good ideas, and worth doing, though mostly unrelated to the problem at hand. And if we are going to have a discussion about Islam, it must be carefully controlled to avoid inflaming sectarian tensions.

Besides, I would not blame the West without evidence. This type of terrorist attack is pretty easy to plan and execute without foreign help. There are thousands of North Caucasus muslims living in St.Petersburg. All it takes is one individual who knows how to build a bomb. Anders Behring Breivik killed more than 100 people all by himself.

If the West doesn’t want to be suspected of aiding or encouraging this attack on Russia then they should restrain their politicians and intel community. I say this as a westerner myself.

There is a big difference between suspicion and blame. I have my suspicions too and I don't doubt that the West is willing and capable of things like this.

But it doesn't make sense to blame the West for this without evidence. Blaming the West for terrorism without solid evidence would only make Russia look weak and stupid, similar to Ukraine blaming Russia for just about anything.

If Russia would get evidence of the West being involved in this, then Russia should not make it public (because it would be ridiculed in the media and the West would deny everything) but rather give a tit-for-tat response, aiding a terrorist attack in the West and if being blamed, deny everything.

But my point is that a terrorist attack like this is possible to execute without any foreign help. Just look what Breivik did.

There are some people in the pro-Russian altsphere, especially those who don’t live here, who love to wax lyrical about the “Orthodox-Islamic civilizational alliance” or some such thing.

They do exist but are a fringe element. There is a problem with Islam in Russia, even this shapoklyak Irina Yarovaya, who speaks mostly in pep platitudes, had to openly admit on Solovyov's show, and I quote: "We do have a problem with Islam". Having said that and not being Putin's fanboy, I have to give him a benefit of a doubt since he can not simply come out and start making statements about containment of Islam--in the end, there are two strategic and rather "moderate" and extremely well-integrated regions of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan which are in the heart of Russia. Caucasus is a separate story and the issue of Second War in Chechnya is a very complex one since Putin made a huge mistake there, despite the better advice of Russian military in early 2000s. Albeit, he had an excuse for this mistake.

As per your friend: I wouldn't put Putin and Merkel in the same universe. History will judge them very differently.

His mistake was in not following the advise of Russian military which promised him to completely pacify Chechnya within couple of years. Putin chose finding political compromises, that is how Kadyrov emerged. Putin intentions on ending the conflict in Chechnya are well understood within the framework of Russia's then extreme limitations in resources and consequences of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. He needed Chechnya more or less calm as ASAP. Strangely enough, this decision, while looking strategic at that time, today seems rather tactical (granted that hindsight is a 20/20 vision) and not to Russia's advantage. But then again, Putin made a huge number of mistakes prior to 2014.

If the West doesn't want to be suspected of aiding or encouraging this attack on Russia then they should restrain their politicians and intel community. I say this as a westerner myself.

There is a big difference between suspicion and blame. I have my suspicions too and I don’t doubt that the West is willing and capable of things like this.

But it doesn’t make sense to blame the West for this without evidence. Blaming the West for terrorism without solid evidence would only make Russia look weak and stupid, similar to Ukraine blaming Russia for just about anything.

If Russia would get evidence of the West being involved in this, then Russia should not make it public (because it would be ridiculed in the media and the West would deny everything) but rather give a tit-for-tat response, aiding a terrorist attack in the West and if being blamed, deny everything.

But my point is that a terrorist attack like this is possible to execute without any foreign help. Just look what Breivik did.

His mistake was in not following the advise of Russian military which promised him to completely pacify Chechnya within couple of years. Putin chose finding political compromises, that is how Kadyrov emerged. Putin intentions on ending the conflict in Chechnya are well understood within the framework of Russia’s then extreme limitations in resources and consequences of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. He needed Chechnya more or less calm as ASAP. Strangely enough, this decision, while looking strategic at that time, today seems rather tactical (granted that hindsight is a 20/20 vision) and not to Russia’s advantage. But then again, Putin made a huge number of mistakes prior to 2014.

I agree. Putin seems to be the type of a leader who doesn't follow his actions through. He leaves them half-done. Crimea was the big exception, and I was actually surprised that Putin went all out there instead of some "cunning plan".

Another one of his mistakes was to support the NATO Afghan invasion in 2001 which brought a big heroin problem to Russia (and most likely tens of thousands of untimely deaths of Russian citizens). NATO would most likely have invaded Afghanistan even if Russia had vetoed in the UN, but by not vetoing Russia gave the NATO a legal authorization to invade Afghanistan. In 2001 Putin was trying to gain the Western support, but he did not understand that he cannot have Western support if he tries to make Russia a better and stronger country at the same time. These things are mutually exclusive. It's pretty amazing that Russia repeated the same mistake in 2011 when it gave the NATO another legal authorization to invade Libya. Nothing was learned it seems.

As for Northern Caucasus, it is a tough task. These people are devout, often radical Muslims. They don't see themselves as Russians, at least a big part of them. They are alien people within Russian Federation, with alien customs and alien way of life, and are often hostile to the rest of the (non-Muslim part of the) country.

What can you do with them? There are basically three choices:

1. You let them live as they want and financially support them at the same time, as is being currently done.2. You try to "change" them with force and extremely harsh/repressive governance.3. You exterminate or ethnically cleanse them and repopulate the region with Russian settlers.

I think backing the Kadyrovs was a good idea which has worked out well. Those who disagree should explain why backing a bunch of losers who had already failed would have been better, or why attempting a total war without any local support would not have been more costly, particularly in the conditions of 2000.

His mistake was in not following the advise of Russian military which promised him to completely pacify Chechnya within couple of years. Putin chose finding political compromises, that is how Kadyrov emerged. Putin intentions on ending the conflict in Chechnya are well understood within the framework of Russia's then extreme limitations in resources and consequences of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. He needed Chechnya more or less calm as ASAP. Strangely enough, this decision, while looking strategic at that time, today seems rather tactical (granted that hindsight is a 20/20 vision) and not to Russia's advantage. But then again, Putin made a huge number of mistakes prior to 2014.

I agree. Putin seems to be the type of a leader who doesn’t follow his actions through. He leaves them half-done. Crimea was the big exception, and I was actually surprised that Putin went all out there instead of some “cunning plan”.

Another one of his mistakes was to support the NATO Afghan invasion in 2001 which brought a big heroin problem to Russia (and most likely tens of thousands of untimely deaths of Russian citizens). NATO would most likely have invaded Afghanistan even if Russia had vetoed in the UN, but by not vetoing Russia gave the NATO a legal authorization to invade Afghanistan. In 2001 Putin was trying to gain the Western support, but he did not understand that he cannot have Western support if he tries to make Russia a better and stronger country at the same time. These things are mutually exclusive. It’s pretty amazing that Russia repeated the same mistake in 2011 when it gave the NATO another legal authorization to invade Libya. Nothing was learned it seems.

As for Northern Caucasus, it is a tough task. These people are devout, often radical Muslims. They don’t see themselves as Russians, at least a big part of them. They are alien people within Russian Federation, with alien customs and alien way of life, and are often hostile to the rest of the (non-Muslim part of the) country.

What can you do with them? There are basically three choices:

1. You let them live as they want and financially support them at the same time, as is being currently done.
2. You try to “change” them with force and extremely harsh/repressive governance.
3. You exterminate or ethnically cleanse them and repopulate the region with Russian settlers.

I agree. Putin seems to be the type of a leader who doesn’t follow his actions through. He leaves them half-done. Crimea was the big exception, and I was actually surprised that Putin went all out there instead of some “cunning plan”.

Putin is a product of humanities education (a lawyer) and of intelligence services, broadly--from the realm which has a very limited (to put it mildly) understanding of real military power and its role in Russia. Considering under whom he entered his civil service "maturity" (under Anatoly Sobchak--a slime bag of massive proportions) it was inevitable that it would take a time for him to get at least some grasp on what was going on in Russia. He was, sometimes, plain simple lucky to get away with "murder" so to speak, such as his military "reform" which balanced over the precipice for a while, until his creature Serdyukov was not removed, together with some fundamental principles (accidentally developed by another professional spy) which encompassed those "reforms". He is definitely a bright man but there is a "shadow" group behind him which develops long term strategies and one of them was utilized in Crimea--no, it is not Shoygu. There is one step which separates Putin from true greatness in Russia's history. Will he make it? Did he learn enough by now? I don't know. I guess we'll see.

Unfortunately Russia has a large indigenous Muslim population. Nothing bad to say about Tatars and Bashkirs, but the North Caucasus Muslim tribes are a problem for Russia. The perpetrator of St.Petersburg terrorist attack is likely a North Caucasus Muslim too (in the surveillance video it looked like a Chechen/Ingush).

In retrospect Russia should have done in Northern Caucasus what Europeans did in North America, and re-populate the region with Orthodox Christians. Now it's too late unless another Stalin rises to power in Russia. Russia is stuck with Northern Caucasus and its problems.

In retrospect Russia should have done in Northern Caucasus what Europeans did in North America, and re-populate the region with Orthodox Christians.

To a very large extent, that’s exactly what happened. The Muslim tribes of the Western Caucasus in the majority migrated to Turkey (1864 – 1867), so the dominant religion was Christianity.

While I have expressed my scepticism that fertility in these republics has declined as much as official statistics claim, it has undoubtedly declined to some extent. Since their population is far from large comparatively, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

I agree. Putin seems to be the type of a leader who doesn't follow his actions through. He leaves them half-done. Crimea was the big exception, and I was actually surprised that Putin went all out there instead of some "cunning plan".

Another one of his mistakes was to support the NATO Afghan invasion in 2001 which brought a big heroin problem to Russia (and most likely tens of thousands of untimely deaths of Russian citizens). NATO would most likely have invaded Afghanistan even if Russia had vetoed in the UN, but by not vetoing Russia gave the NATO a legal authorization to invade Afghanistan. In 2001 Putin was trying to gain the Western support, but he did not understand that he cannot have Western support if he tries to make Russia a better and stronger country at the same time. These things are mutually exclusive. It's pretty amazing that Russia repeated the same mistake in 2011 when it gave the NATO another legal authorization to invade Libya. Nothing was learned it seems.

As for Northern Caucasus, it is a tough task. These people are devout, often radical Muslims. They don't see themselves as Russians, at least a big part of them. They are alien people within Russian Federation, with alien customs and alien way of life, and are often hostile to the rest of the (non-Muslim part of the) country.

What can you do with them? There are basically three choices:

1. You let them live as they want and financially support them at the same time, as is being currently done.2. You try to "change" them with force and extremely harsh/repressive governance.3. You exterminate or ethnically cleanse them and repopulate the region with Russian settlers.

I agree. Putin seems to be the type of a leader who doesn’t follow his actions through. He leaves them half-done. Crimea was the big exception, and I was actually surprised that Putin went all out there instead of some “cunning plan”.

Putin is a product of humanities education (a lawyer) and of intelligence services, broadly–from the realm which has a very limited (to put it mildly) understanding of real military power and its role in Russia. Considering under whom he entered his civil service “maturity” (under Anatoly Sobchak–a slime bag of massive proportions) it was inevitable that it would take a time for him to get at least some grasp on what was going on in Russia. He was, sometimes, plain simple lucky to get away with “murder” so to speak, such as his military “reform” which balanced over the precipice for a while, until his creature Serdyukov was not removed, together with some fundamental principles (accidentally developed by another professional spy) which encompassed those “reforms”. He is definitely a bright man but there is a “shadow” group behind him which develops long term strategies and one of them was utilized in Crimea–no, it is not Shoygu. There is one step which separates Putin from true greatness in Russia’s history. Will he make it? Did he learn enough by now? I don’t know. I guess we’ll see.

Its not an exaggeration since the overall number of these "tribes" or ethnicities is several millions and basically all problems related to radical Islam and terrorism in Russia have their roots in North Caucasus.

Most, if not all, terrorist acts in Russia have been perpetrated by North Caucasus Muslims. They may and likely do receive support from abroad, but the actual perps have been indigenous Muslims from North Caucasus.

Now we have a millions-strong radical Muslim population in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria, AND we have millions of them emigrating to traditionally Orthodox parts of Russia.

"Millions-strong Muslim radical" is a very strong exaggeration. But of course in Russia a serious problem with radical Islam

Its not an exaggeration since the overall number of these “tribes” or ethnicities is several millions and basically all problems related to radical Islam and terrorism in Russia have their roots in North Caucasus.

Its not an exaggeration since the overall number of these “tribes” or ethnicities is several millions and basically all problems related to radical Islam and terrorism in Russia have their roots in North Caucasus.

Radical Muslims among them a minority. During the invasion of the Wahhabis in Dagestan in 1999, the radicals had to fight battles with militia of local “tribes” .

As their numbers grow in Moscow, St.Petersburg and other big cities, so will the problems.

It is too early, though, to speculate (even with the video of alleged perpetrator) on who is really behind those acts.

Most, if not all, terrorist acts in Russia have been perpetrated by North Caucasus Muslims. They may and likely do receive support from abroad, but the actual perps have been indigenous Muslims from North Caucasus.

His mistake was in not following the advise of Russian military which promised him to completely pacify Chechnya within couple of years. Putin chose finding political compromises, that is how Kadyrov emerged. Putin intentions on ending the conflict in Chechnya are well understood within the framework of Russia's then extreme limitations in resources and consequences of NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. He needed Chechnya more or less calm as ASAP. Strangely enough, this decision, while looking strategic at that time, today seems rather tactical (granted that hindsight is a 20/20 vision) and not to Russia's advantage. But then again, Putin made a huge number of mistakes prior to 2014.

I think backing the Kadyrovs was a good idea which has worked out well. Those who disagree should explain why backing a bunch of losers who had already failed would have been better, or why attempting a total war without any local support would not have been more costly, particularly in the conditions of 2000.

That was my caveat about Putin's "excuse". As per losers, Russian military at that time was not talking about some losers--it was about total military control of Chechnya. Could Russian Army deliver on that? I think, for the most part, it could. As per Kadyrov himself, Ramzan certainly learns, no doubt about that. We'll see if it will work out in the end.

Now we have a millions-strong radical Muslim population in Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and Kabardino-Balkaria, AND we have millions of them emigrating to traditionally Orthodox parts of Russia.

As their numbers grow in Moscow, St.Petersburg and other big cities, so will the problems.

While I have expressed my scepticism that fertility in these republics has declined as much as official statistics claim, it has undoubtedly declined to some extent. Since their population is far from large comparatively, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

True, they are not going to become the majority in Russia in any time soon. But their numbers are still growing while the number of ethnic Russians is declining, so they are slowly increasing their share of the population.

And the problem, for me at least, is that they emigrate to other parts of Russia without accustoming to Russian culture and way of life. They are, albeit slowly, "conquering" Orthodox parts of the country while the their own republics are not being "conquered" similarly.

I believe that it is not even possible for an ethnic Russian and an Orthodox to emigrate to Chechnya, right? They would be forced to turn into Islam or even killed there. So we have a situation where the Orthodox parts of Russia are slowly becoming more Islamic while the Islamic parts of Russia are staying as Islamic as they were before. This is not a good direction.

Not to mention the big money drain these republics are for the rest of Russia, swallowing billions while giving very little but problems in return.

I think backing the Kadyrovs was a good idea which has worked out well. Those who disagree should explain why backing a bunch of losers who had already failed would have been better, or why attempting a total war without any local support would not have been more costly, particularly in the conditions of 2000.

particularly in the conditions of 2000.

That was my caveat about Putin’s “excuse”. As per losers, Russian military at that time was not talking about some losers–it was about total military control of Chechnya. Could Russian Army deliver on that? I think, for the most part, it could. As per Kadyrov himself, Ramzan certainly learns, no doubt about that. We’ll see if it will work out in the end.

While I have expressed my scepticism that fertility in these republics has declined as much as official statistics claim, it has undoubtedly declined to some extent. Since their population is far from large comparatively, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

True, they are not going to become the majority in Russia in any time soon. But their numbers are still growing while the number of ethnic Russians is declining, so they are slowly increasing their share of the population.

And the problem, for me at least, is that they emigrate to other parts of Russia without accustoming to Russian culture and way of life. They are, albeit slowly, “conquering” Orthodox parts of the country while the their own republics are not being “conquered” similarly.

I believe that it is not even possible for an ethnic Russian and an Orthodox to emigrate to Chechnya, right? They would be forced to turn into Islam or even killed there. So we have a situation where the Orthodox parts of Russia are slowly becoming more Islamic while the Islamic parts of Russia are staying as Islamic as they were before. This is not a good direction.

Not to mention the big money drain these republics are for the rest of Russia, swallowing billions while giving very little but problems in return.

Couple of points. These discussions should totally not be swept under the rug but be done with full honesty and detail. I believe that is what Felix is asking for. Everyone who takes the subject seriously recognizes the different between the Salafi-Wahhabi extremist strains (which often serve as shock troops for Western governments) and normative Islam (ones that are deeply rooted in traditional Orthodox scholarship, Sufi brotherhoods, etc.). In fact, most Muslim populations don’t want much to do with these extremists since they have a penchant for blowing themselves up within our own Friday prayers, funeral processions, etc. If the question is, how does one distinguish between the two, then that is a very reasonable question.

How is ‘allowing hijabs’ a political demand (note, I can’t read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long. Many of the Cossacks and rural folk still keep this tradition. Please tell me what you get when you look up images for ‘Mordovia traditional female dress’. Should not reasonable (note, I said reasonable) accommodations be made for religious minorities? Should Orthodox Christian women be forced to cover up in conservative societies like Jordan?

You aren’t serious on the border wall are you? How long are we talking and does Russia really have the finances for something like this? The visa thing sounds reasonable.

How is ‘allowing hijabs’ a political demand (note, I can’t read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long.

Indeed hijab is as Russian as anything. Have a look at this painting by Nesterov (mid-19 c)

О чень жаль что некоторые имамы и муфтии молчали все это время ,это позор для них в этой и в последуюшей жизни. --> Very sad that some imams and muftis remained silent all this time, it's a shame on them in this life and the next.

Another commenter suggests campaigning to dismiss the officials who had banned the hijab from schools in the first place.

Vast majority of Russian Muslims are very patriotic. They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together. Chechen conflict is over for a long time. So there is no need for some extreme measures. So a terrorist act happened. Awful but such things happen. The last thing Russia needs is a quarrel with its millions of Muslims – like the US with its Latinos.

Russia doesn't have a quarrel with its Muslims, in fact it goes out of its way to subsidize Muslim majority republics and to appease Muslim sensibilities to the detriment of individual rights, but a non-negligible percentage of its Muslims (especially non-Tatars/Bashkirs) do have a problem with Russia.

Even worse, not all of them are considerate enough to act on those quarrels in Syria (there are more "Russians" in Islamic State than from any other non-majority Muslim country).

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

That, for example, is what Trump wants to do, to reduce the incidence of quarrels with Latinos in the future, for example by letting in much fewer of them, and deporting those of them who are in the US illegally.

They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together.

Öz Beg Khan started converting the Golden Horde to Islam from 1313 (hence the name of Russia's best designed Islamist website), so that's far less than 1000 years (and relations were hardly harmonious). Kazan was conquered in 1552. The most troublesome regions, in the Caucasus - in the 19th century. Their share of Russia's population was far lower back then, and labor mobility far lower.

Vast majority of Russian Muslims are very patriotic. They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together. Chechen conflict is over for a long time. So there is no need for some extreme measures. So a terrorist act happened. Awful but such things happen. The last thing Russia needs is a quarrel with its millions of Muslims - like the US with its Latinos.

Well, famous Russian "oprostovolositsya" comes from Domostroi, if my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me, and has everything to do with Russian women not to be seen with bare head, that is showing their hair. This in no way can serve as an argument since this Russia "hijab" eventually evolved into good ol' kosynka, which was and still is worn by many women and even became a fashion statement in 1960s in Europe. I don't think that we should draw parallels between 21st and 19th centuries. No doubt, that in the context of current events, wearing hijab in the secular state which Russia is--is a political statement. How serious of a political statement, that is up for a debate.

That was my caveat about Putin's "excuse". As per losers, Russian military at that time was not talking about some losers--it was about total military control of Chechnya. Could Russian Army deliver on that? I think, for the most part, it could. As per Kadyrov himself, Ramzan certainly learns, no doubt about that. We'll see if it will work out in the end.

By losers I meant those Chechens who had not supported the separatist side.

I'd just like for people like Frum to fade away. They need to be made unimportant and entirely without influence if we're going to break out of the 20th century for good. When David Frum cries out in pain as he strikes a tree in the forest, does he make a sound?

Indeed hijab is as Russian as anything. Have a look at this painting by Nesterov (mid-19 c)

http://missia.od.ua/uploads/posts/2014-05/thumbs/1400754643_11.jpg

Well, famous Russian “oprostovolositsya” comes from Domostroi, if my Alzheimer’s doesn’t fail me, and has everything to do with Russian women not to be seen with bare head, that is showing their hair. This in no way can serve as an argument since this Russia “hijab” eventually evolved into good ol’ kosynka, which was and still is worn by many women and even became a fashion statement in 1960s in Europe. I don’t think that we should draw parallels between 21st and 19th centuries. No doubt, that in the context of current events, wearing hijab in the secular state which Russia is–is a political statement. How serious of a political statement, that is up for a debate.

It is Frum, alright. What do you expect from these lowlifes, sincere condolences?

I’d just like for people like Frum to fade away. They need to be made unimportant and entirely without influence if we’re going to break out of the 20th century for good. When David Frum cries out in pain as he strikes a tree in the forest, does he make a sound?

Its not an exaggeration since the overall number of these "tribes" or ethnicities is several millions and basically all problems related to radical Islam and terrorism in Russia have their roots in North Caucasus.

Its not an exaggeration since the overall number of these “tribes” or ethnicities is several millions and basically all problems related to radical Islam and terrorism in Russia have their roots in North Caucasus.

Radical Muslims among them a minority. During the invasion of the Wahhabis in Dagestan in 1999, the radicals had to fight battles with militia of local “tribes” .

Vast majority of Russian Muslims are very patriotic. They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together. Chechen conflict is over for a long time. So there is no need for some extreme measures. So a terrorist act happened. Awful but such things happen. The last thing Russia needs is a quarrel with its millions of Muslims - like the US with its Latinos.

Russia doesn’t have a quarrel with its Muslims, in fact it goes out of its way to subsidize Muslim majority republics and to appease Muslim sensibilities to the detriment of individual rights, but a non-negligible percentage of its Muslims (especially non-Tatars/Bashkirs) do have a problem with Russia.

Even worse, not all of them are considerate enough to act on those quarrels in Syria (there are more “Russians” in Islamic State than from any other non-majority Muslim country).

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

That, for example, is what Trump wants to do, to reduce the incidence of quarrels with Latinos in the future, for example by letting in much fewer of them, and deporting those of them who are in the US illegally.

They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together.

Öz Beg Khan started converting the Golden Horde to Islam from 1313 (hence the name of Russia’s best designed Islamist website), so that’s far less than 1000 years (and relations were hardly harmonious). Kazan was conquered in 1552. The most troublesome regions, in the Caucasus – in the 19th century. Their share of Russia’s population was far lower back then, and labor mobility far lower.

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims? As far as I can remember, they're always from the North Caucasus. In terms of "quarrels", it seems to be the same, with most of the problems coming from within the Russian Federation, not without. And Mr. Shamir is right, on a day-to-day basis the Central Asians tend to be pretty passive and meek. Chechens and Dagis, on the other hand...

Furthermore, I think there is a geopolitical calculus in providing temporary jobs for Central Asian laborers. Creating a certain amount of economic dependence, as well as keeping old connections, allows Russia to maintain influence there, where the competition from China is strong.

Border walls aren’t extraordinarily expensive, based on experience from Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Steve Sailer has pointed out numerous times on this very website.

In fact, since we could pay Tajiks to do this, it might even cheaper to Russia (if the Rotenbergs aren’t given a cut, anyway).

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

I'd just like for people like Frum to fade away. They need to be made unimportant and entirely without influence if we're going to break out of the 20th century for good. When David Frum cries out in pain as he strikes a tree in the forest, does he make a sound?

I’d just like for people like Frum to fade away. They need to be made unimportant and entirely without influence if we’re going to break out of the 20th century for good.

Everyone with even a rudimentary political common sense would like them to fade away. But I have a feeling that they will need a lot of “help” in their, so desirable by many, fading away.

Couple of points. These discussions should totally not be swept under the rug but be done with full honesty and detail. I believe that is what Felix is asking for. Everyone who takes the subject seriously recognizes the different between the Salafi-Wahhabi extremist strains (which often serve as shock troops for Western governments) and normative Islam (ones that are deeply rooted in traditional Orthodox scholarship, Sufi brotherhoods, etc.). In fact, most Muslim populations don't want much to do with these extremists since they have a penchant for blowing themselves up within our own Friday prayers, funeral processions, etc. If the question is, how does one distinguish between the two, then that is a very reasonable question.

How is 'allowing hijabs' a political demand (note, I can't read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long. Many of the Cossacks and rural folk still keep this tradition. Please tell me what you get when you look up images for 'Mordovia traditional female dress'. Should not reasonable (note, I said reasonable) accommodations be made for religious minorities? Should Orthodox Christian women be forced to cover up in conservative societies like Jordan?

You aren't serious on the border wall are you? How long are we talking and does Russia really have the finances for something like this? The visa thing sounds reasonable.

Peace.

How is ‘allowing hijabs’ a political demand (note, I can’t read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long.

Indeed hijab is as Russian as anything. Have a look at this painting by Nesterov (mid-19 c)

О чень жаль что некоторые имамы и муфтии молчали все это время ,это позор для них в этой и в последуюшей жизни. –> Very sad that some imams and muftis remained silent all this time, it’s a shame on them in this life and the next.

Another commenter suggests campaigning to dismiss the officials who had banned the hijab from schools in the first place.

Nothing to do with tradition, culture, that some people want to pretend it is.

This is where the secular mind has difficulty understanding the religious mind. This is a religious issue - period. It is a religious imperative and has been for 14 centuries - we have the books to prove it. Secularism has always had a problem with religion - it doesn't know what to do with people that refuse to be on sale.

"Go drinking with us on Saturday night and, uh, throw in your wife's hijab. Oh yeah and ditch the Friday prayer while you're at it. Then we're cool as cats."

Furthermore, how are efforts of "lawyers and human rights people" not part of the Russian secular framework? How do you square the circle?

The secular mind sees this as a political issue because it is the only paradigm by which it judges things. The fact that some Muslim celebrates by saying "alhamdulillah" - if you are privy to a conversation between two Muslims - their entire conversation is peppered with such statements. I say that if I change the flat tire on my car successfully.

As far as the claim that this is the 21st Century and thus women don't cover their hair. Apparently men marry men too so I guess that logic works. The secular mind assumes human beings are progressing on both a technological and moral plane. I leave it to others to figure out whether that is the correct conclusion.

Anatol, Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.
Muslims from Central Asia are far from being radical – usually they are very meek. Radical Muslims went away to Afghanistan, Syria, even Europe.
I visited Dagestan – they would not dream to leave Russia. When Chechens thought they can bring Dagestanis on their side and tried it, they failed famously. There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.
You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism. Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I’ll connect you with Dagestan. They have different problems: their local aristocracy is quite awful, and Moscow (perhaps wisely) does not want to interfere. The people look at Moscow with much admiration, over there.
The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.
And the last point: Russia is not a secular state. The USSR was, but Russia is not.

Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.

I'd be very surprised if there are more Chechens on Russia's/Assad's side in Syria than on that of Islamic State and FSA/Al Nusra.

Even in Ukraine the balance seems to have been at best even.

Moreover, realistically speaking, a good percentage of the Chechens on Russia's side are there because Kadyrov sent them, whereas those who went to fight for Ukraine and the Syrian rebels/IS went there of their own free will.

You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism.

The Muslims who immigrated to Europe in the 1950s-60s were reasonably patriotic and hardworking, though duller than the natives. Many came from reasonably enlightened countries, such as Turkey.

Their progeny tend to be much less hardworking, not any more intelligent, tend to have a chip on their shoulder regarding their host countries because of their lack of socioeconomic success and Leftist agitation, are responsible for almost all serious terrorism, and form heavily criminalized underclasses in the urban underbellies of the old continenent. These underclasses look set to remain indefinitely, because Muslims tend not to outmarry outside their religion and even extended families (unlike, say, American Latinos).

Possibly making analogies with the European experience and looking at statistics might be me seeing things from "a Western prism," and Russia will in fact be a glaring exception to this pattern. But I would rather not bet on that.

PS. While you correct that Central Asians are not radical by global Muslim standards, there are differences between them as well, with Kazakhs and Kyrgyz being more civilized, while Tajiks are not far away from Pakistanis in their social attitudes on questions like the permissibility of honor killings. The head of special police in Tajikistan famously defected to Islamic State a couple of years ago.

Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I’ll connect you with Dagestan.

Thanks for the offer, I have discussed going to Dagestan with some friends (though Crimea and Donbass are higher on our list).

There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.

Which ones?

The Armenians bombed a few metro stations back during the Soviet Union, though that's about it.

I suppose Georgians are also a problem in that they are massively overrepresented in the ranks of organized crime.

I am not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians.

The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.

1. I don't see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.

2. I am not calling for any anti-Muslim measures (unless denying that Tajiks have an inalienable right to immigrate to Russia is implicitly anti-Muslim).

How is ‘allowing hijabs’ a political demand (note, I can’t read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long.

Indeed hijab is as Russian as anything. Have a look at this painting by Nesterov (mid-19 c)

О чень жаль что некоторые имамы и муфтии молчали все это время ,это позор для них в этой и в последуюшей жизни. --> Very sad that some imams and muftis remained silent all this time, it's a shame on them in this life and the next.

Another commenter suggests campaigning to dismiss the officials who had banned the hijab from schools in the first place.

tl;dr - Nothing to do with tradition, culture, that some people want to pretend it is. Everything to do with celebrating the political victory of Islam over Russian secularism (which it is).

You aren’t serious on the border wall are you? How long are we talking and does Russia really have the finances for something like this? The visa thing sounds reasonable.

Border walls aren't extraordinarily expensive, based on experience from Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Steve Sailer has pointed out numerous times on this very website.

In fact, since we could pay Tajiks to do this, it might even cheaper to Russia (if the Rotenbergs aren't given a cut, anyway).

Hey Mr. Karlin,

Nothing to do with tradition, culture, that some people want to pretend it is.

This is where the secular mind has difficulty understanding the religious mind. This is a religious issue – period. It is a religious imperative and has been for 14 centuries – we have the books to prove it. Secularism has always had a problem with religion – it doesn’t know what to do with people that refuse to be on sale.

“Go drinking with us on Saturday night and, uh, throw in your wife’s hijab. Oh yeah and ditch the Friday prayer while you’re at it. Then we’re cool as cats.”

Furthermore, how are efforts of “lawyers and human rights people” not part of the Russian secular framework? How do you square the circle?

The secular mind sees this as a political issue because it is the only paradigm by which it judges things. The fact that some Muslim celebrates by saying “alhamdulillah” – if you are privy to a conversation between two Muslims – their entire conversation is peppered with such statements. I say that if I change the flat tire on my car successfully.

As far as the claim that this is the 21st Century and thus women don’t cover their hair. Apparently men marry men too so I guess that logic works. The secular mind assumes human beings are progressing on both a technological and moral plane. I leave it to others to figure out whether that is the correct conclusion.

Talha, we'll surely agree that humankind doesn't seem to be advancing morally, overall, at present, either in the West or elsewhere. (Presumably we'd also agree that men "marrying" other men is a sign of moral depravity and that that lifestyle leads men to abjure their normal, healthy role and shirk their obligation to perpetuate their family and their nation.)

But to my mind, Islam would be a "cure" in some ways even worse than the disease.

Anatol, Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.
Muslims from Central Asia are far from being radical - usually they are very meek. Radical Muslims went away to Afghanistan, Syria, even Europe.
I visited Dagestan - they would not dream to leave Russia. When Chechens thought they can bring Dagestanis on their side and tried it, they failed famously. There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.
You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism. Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I'll connect you with Dagestan. They have different problems: their local aristocracy is quite awful, and Moscow (perhaps wisely) does not want to interfere. The people look at Moscow with much admiration, over there.
The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.
And the last point: Russia is not a secular state. The USSR was, but Russia is not.

Russia is not a secular state. The USSR was, but Russia is not.

Article 14 of the Russian constitution:

1. The Russian Federation is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory one.

2. Religious associations shall be separated from the State and shall be equal before the law.

Well, famous Russian "oprostovolositsya" comes from Domostroi, if my Alzheimer's doesn't fail me, and has everything to do with Russian women not to be seen with bare head, that is showing their hair. This in no way can serve as an argument since this Russia "hijab" eventually evolved into good ol' kosynka, which was and still is worn by many women and even became a fashion statement in 1960s in Europe. I don't think that we should draw parallels between 21st and 19th centuries. No doubt, that in the context of current events, wearing hijab in the secular state which Russia is--is a political statement. How serious of a political statement, that is up for a debate.

wearing hijab in the secular state which Russia is–is a political statement. How serious of a political statement, that is up for a debate.

Anatol, Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.
Muslims from Central Asia are far from being radical - usually they are very meek. Radical Muslims went away to Afghanistan, Syria, even Europe.
I visited Dagestan - they would not dream to leave Russia. When Chechens thought they can bring Dagestanis on their side and tried it, they failed famously. There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.
You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism. Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I'll connect you with Dagestan. They have different problems: their local aristocracy is quite awful, and Moscow (perhaps wisely) does not want to interfere. The people look at Moscow with much admiration, over there.
The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.
And the last point: Russia is not a secular state. The USSR was, but Russia is not.

Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.

I’d be very surprised if there are more Chechens on Russia’s/Assad’s side in Syria than on that of Islamic State and FSA/Al Nusra.

Even in Ukraine the balance seems to have been at best even.

Moreover, realistically speaking, a good percentage of the Chechens on Russia’s side are there because Kadyrov sent them, whereas those who went to fight for Ukraine and the Syrian rebels/IS went there of their own free will.

You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism.

The Muslims who immigrated to Europe in the 1950s-60s were reasonably patriotic and hardworking, though duller than the natives. Many came from reasonably enlightened countries, such as Turkey.

Their progeny tend to be much less hardworking, not any more intelligent, tend to have a chip on their shoulder regarding their host countries because of their lack of socioeconomic success and Leftist agitation, are responsible for almost all serious terrorism, and form heavily criminalized underclasses in the urban underbellies of the old continenent. These underclasses look set to remain indefinitely, because Muslims tend not to outmarry outside their religion and even extended families (unlike, say, American Latinos).

Possibly making analogies with the European experience and looking at statistics might be me seeing things from “a Western prism,” and Russia will in fact be a glaring exception to this pattern. But I would rather not bet on that.

PS. While you correct that Central Asians are not radical by global Muslim standards, there are differences between them as well, with Kazakhs and Kyrgyz being more civilized, while Tajiks are not far away from Pakistanis in their social attitudes on questions like the permissibility of honor killings. The head of special police in Tajikistan famously defected to Islamic State a couple of years ago.

Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I’ll connect you with Dagestan.

Thanks for the offer, I have discussed going to Dagestan with some friends (though Crimea and Donbass are higher on our list).

There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.

Which ones?

The Armenians bombed a few metro stations back during the Soviet Union, though that’s about it.

I suppose Georgians are also a problem in that they are massively overrepresented in the ranks of organized crime.

I am not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians.

The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.

1. I don’t see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.

2. I am not calling for any anti-Muslim measures (unless denying that Tajiks have an inalienable right to immigrate to Russia is implicitly anti-Muslim).

" I'm not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians, "No mention of the 1916 Guilt Trip so far. Once the Jews are safely interned in one-state Palestine, expect things to change. Where were your ( great) grandparents in 1916, Anatoly? What did they NOT stop the 1916 Genocide ? You've never condemned them. You must be a bad person.YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.
[I don’t see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.]
I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught. On the other hand, it would certainly make your lame agitation more popular, so there's that.

Russia doesn't have a quarrel with its Muslims, in fact it goes out of its way to subsidize Muslim majority republics and to appease Muslim sensibilities to the detriment of individual rights, but a non-negligible percentage of its Muslims (especially non-Tatars/Bashkirs) do have a problem with Russia.

Even worse, not all of them are considerate enough to act on those quarrels in Syria (there are more "Russians" in Islamic State than from any other non-majority Muslim country).

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

That, for example, is what Trump wants to do, to reduce the incidence of quarrels with Latinos in the future, for example by letting in much fewer of them, and deporting those of them who are in the US illegally.

They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together.

Öz Beg Khan started converting the Golden Horde to Islam from 1313 (hence the name of Russia's best designed Islamist website), so that's far less than 1000 years (and relations were hardly harmonious). Kazan was conquered in 1552. The most troublesome regions, in the Caucasus - in the 19th century. Their share of Russia's population was far lower back then, and labor mobility far lower.

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims? As far as I can remember, they’re always from the North Caucasus. In terms of “quarrels”, it seems to be the same, with most of the problems coming from within the Russian Federation, not without. And Mr. Shamir is right, on a day-to-day basis the Central Asians tend to be pretty passive and meek. Chechens and Dagis, on the other hand…

Furthermore, I think there is a geopolitical calculus in providing temporary jobs for Central Asian laborers. Creating a certain amount of economic dependence, as well as keeping old connections, allows Russia to maintain influence there, where the competition from China is strong.

Border walls aren’t extraordinarily expensive, based on experience from Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Steve Sailer has pointed out numerous times on this very website.

In fact, since we could pay Tajiks to do this, it might even cheaper to Russia (if the Rotenbergs aren’t given a cut, anyway).

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims?

Just a few months ago: The Uzbek nanny Bobokulova, who decapitated the child she was paid to care for and walked around the streets shouting allah akbaring, and it took the glorious Russian police almost an hour to take her into custody.

The shrinks concluded she was mentally disturbed and this had nothing to do with Islam and she was deported to Uzbekistan. Maybe she'll be back in a few years, who knows.

I can't think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it's only a matter of time before they start cropping up. A few months ago I recall news of an Islamic State cell being uncovered amongst Tajik immigrants.

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

No, it's not. CIA's ties to Islamic radicals are well documented. US uses Muslim terrorists as tools to destabilise countries they dislike. Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia - the world's number 1 sponsor of terrorism - is a close US ally.

US uses Muslim terrorists as tools to destabilise countries they dislike.

Assist one little mujahideen group in Afghanistan in the last century and you never hear the last of it.

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims? As far as I can remember, they're always from the North Caucasus. In terms of "quarrels", it seems to be the same, with most of the problems coming from within the Russian Federation, not without. And Mr. Shamir is right, on a day-to-day basis the Central Asians tend to be pretty passive and meek. Chechens and Dagis, on the other hand...

Furthermore, I think there is a geopolitical calculus in providing temporary jobs for Central Asian laborers. Creating a certain amount of economic dependence, as well as keeping old connections, allows Russia to maintain influence there, where the competition from China is strong.

Border walls aren’t extraordinarily expensive, based on experience from Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Steve Sailer has pointed out numerous times on this very website.

In fact, since we could pay Tajiks to do this, it might even cheaper to Russia (if the Rotenbergs aren’t given a cut, anyway).

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims?

Just a few months ago: The Uzbek nanny Bobokulova, who decapitated the child she was paid to care for and walked around the streets shouting allah akbaring, and it took the glorious Russian police almost an hour to take her into custody.

The shrinks concluded she was mentally disturbed and this had nothing to do with Islam and she was deported to Uzbekistan. Maybe she’ll be back in a few years, who knows.

I can’t think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it’s only a matter of time before they start cropping up. A few months ago I recall news of an Islamic State cell being uncovered amongst Tajik immigrants.

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

"I can’t think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it’s only a matter of time before they start cropping up." central Asian muslims are terrorism prone in China, so they are in general not immune against that.

[Anyhow, more seriously, it would still probably be cheaper than the World Cup Russia is putting on in 2018 for who knows what reason.]
Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

One reasonable solution to reducing the incidence of these quarrels is to clamp down on immigration from Central Asia, a Muslim demographic reservoir ten times bigger than the one in the North Caucasus.

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims? As far as I can remember, they're always from the North Caucasus. In terms of "quarrels", it seems to be the same, with most of the problems coming from within the Russian Federation, not without. And Mr. Shamir is right, on a day-to-day basis the Central Asians tend to be pretty passive and meek. Chechens and Dagis, on the other hand...

Furthermore, I think there is a geopolitical calculus in providing temporary jobs for Central Asian laborers. Creating a certain amount of economic dependence, as well as keeping old connections, allows Russia to maintain influence there, where the competition from China is strong.

Border walls aren’t extraordinarily expensive, based on experience from Israel and Saudi Arabia, as Steve Sailer has pointed out numerous times on this very website.

In fact, since we could pay Tajiks to do this, it might even cheaper to Russia (if the Rotenbergs aren’t given a cut, anyway).

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims?

Just a few months ago: The Uzbek nanny Bobokulova, who decapitated the child she was paid to care for and walked around the streets shouting allah akbaring, and it took the glorious Russian police almost an hour to take her into custody.

The shrinks concluded she was mentally disturbed and this had nothing to do with Islam and she was deported to Uzbekistan. Maybe she'll be back in a few years, who knows.

I can't think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it's only a matter of time before they start cropping up. A few months ago I recall news of an Islamic State cell being uncovered amongst Tajik immigrants.

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

Anyhow, more seriously, it would still probably be cheaper than the World Cup Russia is putting on in 2018 for who knows what reason.

Also a wall is the extreme solutions; visa regime and strict vetting at a minimum.

“I can’t think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it’s only a matter of time before they start cropping up.” central Asian muslims are terrorism prone in China, so they are in general not immune against that.

There's no easy answer to this one. The Russian constitution guarantees freedom of movement for all its citizens. On the flip side, there are no ridiculous taboos against racial profiling by law enforcement, these people do tend to be kept on a tighter leash outside of their native regions.

"I can’t think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it’s only a matter of time before they start cropping up." central Asian muslims are terrorism prone in China, so they are in general not immune against that.

Well, don’t I feel silly now, impeccable timing on my part. Certainly I never meant to suggest that Central Asians are some kind of angels. Now that you mention it, I do remember the news of the Tajik IS cell in Moscow. There was also the West Side Story style rumble between Tajik and Chechen gangs at Khovanskoyoe Cemetery that left a few dead (big competition for the steady business of burying people). And, if I remember correctly, the gunman at the Turkish nightclub attack was also CA, a lot of them are in IS. I would agree with the shrinks on that Uzbek nanny, though, she seemed more psycho than terrorist.

How realistic it would be for Russia to limit internal emigration from North Caucasus to rest of Russia? The current Putin government will not do this, but in the future it may be a necessity.

There’s no easy answer to this one. The Russian constitution guarantees freedom of movement for all its citizens. On the flip side, there are no ridiculous taboos against racial profiling by law enforcement, these people do tend to be kept on a tighter leash outside of their native regions.

After seeing the US Senate hearings on Russian interference, I have to entertain the possibility the bombing was done at the direction of some of the malicious, misanthropic and now existentially threatened freaks inhabiting "our" intel community:

I agree. And we recently had almost the entire Washington consensus screeching hysterically and demanding an explanation for why Putin and his "KGB" are allowed to get away with trying to bring down their republic. The deep state may have felt they had to give Putin a bloody nose just to prove their manhood to Congress and the media.

maybe in 500 years the only differences that matters is whether a country experiences mass immigration subsaharan Africa or not, while the question of religion is rather superficial.

I think that is true. However the thing about Islam (or maybe the people from certain regions of the world that happen to be Muslim) is they kick off early – they’re an early warning of what is to come.

If westerners knew at least 10 percent about Putin's views/positions, he would neither be unreservedly praised by the AltRight nor hysterically maligned by the left. The thing is, most journalists probably know, which makes them even more despicable than if they were simply ignorant.

Putin's daughters?
1 is married to a South Korean.
The other to an oligarch whose surname turns up only an Israeli politician.

Does not sound like the girls were raised racist, does it?

If westerners knew at least 10 percent about Putin’s views/positions, he would neither be unreservedly praised by the AltRight

akarlin, what do you think blaming Islam would accomplish? There are millions of Muslims in Russia, but, for most of them, their connection to their Islamic identity is pretty weak. Attacking Muslims as a group will reinforce their sense of identity.

I seriously have to ask: what is your endgame? Border wall with Tatarstan?

There are millions of Muslims in Russia, but, for most of them, their connection to their Islamic identity is pretty weak.

That was true of a lot of places before Saudi Arabia sent jihadist mosques and preachers.

There’s no way out of the trajectory we’re on while that is still the case – and it may be too late already.

2&3 are good ideas, and worth doing, though mostly unrelated to the problem at hand. And if we are going to have a discussion about Islam, it must be carefully controlled to avoid inflaming sectarian tensions.

And if we are going to have a discussion about Islam, it must be carefully controlled to avoid inflaming sectarian tensions.

I’ve heard this a million times and it would make sense IF Saudi Arabia wasn’t funding thousands of mosques preaching violent jihad.

Sectarian tensions have been getting inflamed for decades but only on one side.

Vast majority of Russian Muslims are very patriotic. They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together. Chechen conflict is over for a long time. So there is no need for some extreme measures. So a terrorist act happened. Awful but such things happen. The last thing Russia needs is a quarrel with its millions of Muslims - like the US with its Latinos.

Do you want more Muslims in Israel?

Just checking cos if you want more Muslims in every country except Israel that might imply you think it’s harmful in which case you are promoting a form of stealth warfare.

True, they are not going to become the majority in Russia in any time soon. But their numbers are still growing while the number of ethnic Russians is declining, so they are slowly increasing their share of the population.

And the problem, for me at least, is that they emigrate to other parts of Russia without accustoming to Russian culture and way of life. They are, albeit slowly, "conquering" Orthodox parts of the country while the their own republics are not being "conquered" similarly.

I believe that it is not even possible for an ethnic Russian and an Orthodox to emigrate to Chechnya, right? They would be forced to turn into Islam or even killed there. So we have a situation where the Orthodox parts of Russia are slowly becoming more Islamic while the Islamic parts of Russia are staying as Islamic as they were before. This is not a good direction.

Not to mention the big money drain these republics are for the rest of Russia, swallowing billions while giving very little but problems in return.

I would be horrified to see Russia taken over by the cancer that is islam. But your analysis seems sound.

Nothing to do with tradition, culture, that some people want to pretend it is.

This is where the secular mind has difficulty understanding the religious mind. This is a religious issue - period. It is a religious imperative and has been for 14 centuries - we have the books to prove it. Secularism has always had a problem with religion - it doesn't know what to do with people that refuse to be on sale.

"Go drinking with us on Saturday night and, uh, throw in your wife's hijab. Oh yeah and ditch the Friday prayer while you're at it. Then we're cool as cats."

Furthermore, how are efforts of "lawyers and human rights people" not part of the Russian secular framework? How do you square the circle?

The secular mind sees this as a political issue because it is the only paradigm by which it judges things. The fact that some Muslim celebrates by saying "alhamdulillah" - if you are privy to a conversation between two Muslims - their entire conversation is peppered with such statements. I say that if I change the flat tire on my car successfully.

As far as the claim that this is the 21st Century and thus women don't cover their hair. Apparently men marry men too so I guess that logic works. The secular mind assumes human beings are progressing on both a technological and moral plane. I leave it to others to figure out whether that is the correct conclusion.

Peace.

Talha, we’ll surely agree that humankind doesn’t seem to be advancing morally, overall, at present, either in the West or elsewhere. (Presumably we’d also agree that men “marrying” other men is a sign of moral depravity and that that lifestyle leads men to abjure their normal, healthy role and shirk their obligation to perpetuate their family and their nation.)

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

We can disagree on this, but that wasn't my point. If you want to know what my point is, then look at this video. Then tell me why these women are covering their hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQYf8LsD1dc

Then explain to me why God stops watching you once you step out of church. Hijab is and has always been a religious issue for us - the secularist will draw his own conclusion. Unless you think the Virgin Mary (pbuh) would simply cast aside her veil (look at the icon behind Putin) to 'modern up' and get in line for an education - is that the going price for feminine modesty these days?

As far as whatever disease Europe has caught, I can tell you it is killing off the population faster than any current active plague. You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

Peace.

*It's probably best if the get they hell outta Dodge before the SHTF in countries that have massive welfare liabilities and declining populations.

Vast majority of Russian Muslims are very patriotic. They live with Russian Christians for a thousand years together. Chechen conflict is over for a long time. So there is no need for some extreme measures. So a terrorist act happened. Awful but such things happen. The last thing Russia needs is a quarrel with its millions of Muslims - like the US with its Latinos.

Should Russians wait until they are outnumbered by Muslims to do something about it?

Do you think that Muslims will treat non-Muslims peacefully, tolerantly, fairly in Russia once Muslim constitute even 40% of the national population?

Do you doubt that Muslims will constitute a much larger share of Russia’s population, or the RF’s population, in 20 years from now?

God bless and keep the Russian people, and all peoples plagued by islam in their midst.

I have always remembered a professor (of a Soviet Union 101 type course, no less) that use to say, when somebody mentioned the old adage of "wars are fought for territory or resources" that the adage was true, except for "the bloody borders of Islam". At the time it struck me as peculiar, anachronistic, the last caliphate being long gone.

Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.

I'd be very surprised if there are more Chechens on Russia's/Assad's side in Syria than on that of Islamic State and FSA/Al Nusra.

Even in Ukraine the balance seems to have been at best even.

Moreover, realistically speaking, a good percentage of the Chechens on Russia's side are there because Kadyrov sent them, whereas those who went to fight for Ukraine and the Syrian rebels/IS went there of their own free will.

You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism.

The Muslims who immigrated to Europe in the 1950s-60s were reasonably patriotic and hardworking, though duller than the natives. Many came from reasonably enlightened countries, such as Turkey.

Their progeny tend to be much less hardworking, not any more intelligent, tend to have a chip on their shoulder regarding their host countries because of their lack of socioeconomic success and Leftist agitation, are responsible for almost all serious terrorism, and form heavily criminalized underclasses in the urban underbellies of the old continenent. These underclasses look set to remain indefinitely, because Muslims tend not to outmarry outside their religion and even extended families (unlike, say, American Latinos).

Possibly making analogies with the European experience and looking at statistics might be me seeing things from "a Western prism," and Russia will in fact be a glaring exception to this pattern. But I would rather not bet on that.

PS. While you correct that Central Asians are not radical by global Muslim standards, there are differences between them as well, with Kazakhs and Kyrgyz being more civilized, while Tajiks are not far away from Pakistanis in their social attitudes on questions like the permissibility of honor killings. The head of special police in Tajikistan famously defected to Islamic State a couple of years ago.

Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I’ll connect you with Dagestan.

Thanks for the offer, I have discussed going to Dagestan with some friends (though Crimea and Donbass are higher on our list).

There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.

Which ones?

The Armenians bombed a few metro stations back during the Soviet Union, though that's about it.

I suppose Georgians are also a problem in that they are massively overrepresented in the ranks of organized crime.

I am not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians.

The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.

1. I don't see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.

2. I am not calling for any anti-Muslim measures (unless denying that Tajiks have an inalienable right to immigrate to Russia is implicitly anti-Muslim).

” I’m not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians, ”
No mention of the 1916 Guilt Trip so far. Once the Jews are safely interned in one-state Palestine, expect things to change. Where were your ( great) grandparents in 1916, Anatoly? What did they NOT stop the 1916 Genocide ? You’ve never condemned them. You must be a bad person.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

OT A commenter claimed that you are a British Citizen. You gave an evasive answer and sent him on his way.
However, in the above article you used an English word so obscure, the commenter must be right. That word is Codswallop, meaning complete nonsense. This originates from a 1959 BBC episode of " Hancock's Half Hour," written by Galton and Simpson.
For North Americans, Tony Hancock was a brilliant British Comedian of the 1950s and 60s and Galton and Simpson were his even more brilliant scriptwriters. Many modern comedians in Britain, and elsewhere in the Anglosphere have continued to recycle their material without acknowledgement.
Conclusion: You, AK, studied at King's College London, using classic British comedy material to learn colloquial English. You became a British citizen: after all. the more passports, the better.
I claim my £20 reward. Please expedite, Mr Unz knows my address !

Talha, we'll surely agree that humankind doesn't seem to be advancing morally, overall, at present, either in the West or elsewhere. (Presumably we'd also agree that men "marrying" other men is a sign of moral depravity and that that lifestyle leads men to abjure their normal, healthy role and shirk their obligation to perpetuate their family and their nation.)

But to my mind, Islam would be a "cure" in some ways even worse than the disease.

Hey RC,

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

We can disagree on this, but that wasn’t my point. If you want to know what my point is, then look at this video. Then tell me why these women are covering their hair.

Then explain to me why God stops watching you once you step out of church. Hijab is and has always been a religious issue for us – the secularist will draw his own conclusion. Unless you think the Virgin Mary (pbuh) would simply cast aside her veil (look at the icon behind Putin) to ‘modern up’ and get in line for an education – is that the going price for feminine modesty these days?

As far as whatever disease Europe has caught, I can tell you it is killing off the population faster than any current active plague. You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

Peace.

*It’s probably best if the get they hell outta Dodge before the SHTF in countries that have massive welfare liabilities and declining populations.

You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

See my comment above about race and Islam. Kicking out all the Muslims (and other non whites) is something I have no qualms in supporting. You see no matter how low the birth rates decline the idea that population will get to zero is just not likely, eventually the population dynamics will change, eventually white people will have changing demographics. However, if their land are already occupied by other people and nothing is done about it, then the end is inevitable.

Since I'm not Muslim, I have nothing to say about the hijab, except that it has always been obvious to me that it is mostly a question of religion or at least traditional modesty and only occasionally a political statement. About the headscarf in Orthodox churches, however, I do have a few things to add. It really does seem to be a question of traditional modesty and done in deference to the Mother of God and not a strict religious imperative, which is why it is not surprising that even quite conservative Orthodox Christian women (say wives of priests) do not wear it all of the time. And there is a surprisingly old precedent for this, namely the mosaic in the apse of Santa Prassede in Rome, which depicts two Roman patrician women without headscarves and on quite friendly and informal terms with the apostles Peter and Paul: http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Rome%20&%20Central%20Italy/Rome/Rome_Churches/Santa_Prassede/Santa_Prassede.htm

By the way, I had to look up "pbuh". I was pleasantly surprised to find it was not another rude acronymn of the twitterbrains. Perhaps you know that angry atheists and even American "evangelicals" like to insult the Mother of Jesus, and that this is the surest way to enrage an Orthodox Christian. But contra Anatoly, my experience with Muslims (including your thoughtful comments here) has been uniformly one of mutual if guarded respect.

Minor personal note, Talha: my father's mother, born in the USA to Slovak parents, used to cover her head thus in church.

But for one thing, the succeeding generation gave up that habit. The women didn't become promiscuous sluts with perverse anti-family priorities and lifestyle like many of today's Western women.

The women of our family in the USA after that generation still dressed with appropriate modesty and made a priority of motherhood and the perpetuation of our family and nation -- but they dropped the head coverings. They did so largely out of a laudable desire to fully assimilate and to be SEEN as fully assimilating.

More to the point, wearing a hijab or similar covering in a non-Muslim country can be and often is an aggressive political statement, that Muslims intend to remake, influence, and then control our societies. As I find islam to be particularly illogical and dangerous -- even compared to other religions, which all seem susceptible to some such criticism -- and don't want a muslim society, I don't favor women wearing such coverings here with the symbolism and message that tends to convey.

You are a very effective apologist for islam in our countries. I wonder how much you will still find the need to persuade rather than coerce if muslims continue to grow as a share of our population and become more demanding. You (collectively) can be very respectable and courteous until you gain strength in a society, then the kaffirs had better watch out.

How is ‘allowing hijabs’ a political demand (note, I can’t read Russian so maybe it is in the context you posted)? Females covering the head has been a trait of Russian history from God knows how long.

Indeed hijab is as Russian as anything. Have a look at this painting by Nesterov (mid-19 c)

О чень жаль что некоторые имамы и муфтии молчали все это время ,это позор для них в этой и в последуюшей жизни. --> Very sad that some imams and muftis remained silent all this time, it's a shame on them in this life and the next.

Another commenter suggests campaigning to dismiss the officials who had banned the hijab from schools in the first place.

No, it's a political statement because of the intimate connection between religion and politics in much of the Muslim world, and because we have had quite a few examples in the past few decades where political Islam ultimately leads to (e.g. Iran, Egypt under Mursi, Turkey though the process there isn't complete).
If the Islamic world reverts to its former state, ok, bad for the more enlightened part of the population there, but can't be changed. But the rest of us in historically non-Muslim nations is under no obligation to let similar processes play themselves out in our own countries.

"I can’t think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it’s only a matter of time before they start cropping up." central Asian muslims are terrorism prone in China, so they are in general not immune against that.

The recent terrorist in Turkey (who shot up the nightclub) was from one of former Soviet central Asian republics.

wearing hijab in the secular state which Russia is–is a political statement.

But hold on, if wearing a scarf on one's head is a political statement, isn't it precisely because idiots like you are trying to ban it?

No, it’s a political statement because of the intimate connection between religion and politics in much of the Muslim world, and because we have had quite a few examples in the past few decades where political Islam ultimately leads to (e.g. Iran, Egypt under Mursi, Turkey though the process there isn’t complete).
If the Islamic world reverts to its former state, ok, bad for the more enlightened part of the population there, but can’t be changed. But the rest of us in historically non-Muslim nations is under no obligation to let similar processes play themselves out in our own countries.

I'm not really familiar with Mr Shamir's writings, but hey, just look at his Wiki page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_ShamirUnder "views" it states he's for a one-state solution...doesn't look like he wants to keep Israel as a Jewish nation state.I mean seriously, I can see where you're coming from, but one can be a bit too paranoid sometimes, don't you think?

Under “views” it states he’s for a one-state solution…doesn’t look like he wants to keep Israel as a Jewish nation state.
I mean seriously, I can see where you’re coming from, but one can be a bit too paranoid sometimes, don’t you think?

Indeed, the whole thing about Islam is not just about religion it is also about race. Most Muslims are of the brown third world type and I think that many who go on about the Muslims do so because it is more PC to attack it is a religious than a racial matter. This is also why I find it so ridiculous how some people say Hitler was pro Islam, as if he would have wanted Paris and London being taken over by third worlders.

I'm not really familiar with Mr Shamir's writings, but hey, just look at his Wiki page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_ShamirUnder "views" it states he's for a one-state solution...doesn't look like he wants to keep Israel as a Jewish nation state.I mean seriously, I can see where you're coming from, but one can be a bit too paranoid sometimes, don't you think?

OT A commenter claimed that you are a British Citizen. You gave an evasive answer and sent him on his way.
However, in the above article you used an English word so obscure, the commenter must be right. That word is Codswallop, meaning complete nonsense. This originates from a 1959 BBC episode of ” Hancock’s Half Hour,” written by Galton and Simpson.
For North Americans, Tony Hancock was a brilliant British Comedian of the 1950s and 60s and Galton and Simpson were his even more brilliant scriptwriters. Many modern comedians in Britain, and elsewhere in the Anglosphere have continued to recycle their material without acknowledgement.
Conclusion: You, AK, studied at King’s College London, using classic British comedy material to learn colloquial English. You became a British citizen: after all. the more passports, the better.
I claim my £20 reward. Please expedite, Mr Unz knows my address !

Bosnians are very different and weren't particularly devout - until the Saudi funded preachers showed up.

Bosnians are very different

Indeed, the whole thing about Islam is not just about religion it is also about race. Most Muslims are of the brown third world type and I think that many who go on about the Muslims do so because it is more PC to attack it is a religious than a racial matter. This is also why I find it so ridiculous how some people say Hitler was pro Islam, as if he would have wanted Paris and London being taken over by third worlders.

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

We can disagree on this, but that wasn't my point. If you want to know what my point is, then look at this video. Then tell me why these women are covering their hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQYf8LsD1dc

Then explain to me why God stops watching you once you step out of church. Hijab is and has always been a religious issue for us - the secularist will draw his own conclusion. Unless you think the Virgin Mary (pbuh) would simply cast aside her veil (look at the icon behind Putin) to 'modern up' and get in line for an education - is that the going price for feminine modesty these days?

As far as whatever disease Europe has caught, I can tell you it is killing off the population faster than any current active plague. You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

Peace.

*It's probably best if the get they hell outta Dodge before the SHTF in countries that have massive welfare liabilities and declining populations.

You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

See my comment above about race and Islam. Kicking out all the Muslims (and other non whites) is something I have no qualms in supporting. You see no matter how low the birth rates decline the idea that population will get to zero is just not likely, eventually the population dynamics will change, eventually white people will have changing demographics. However, if their land are already occupied by other people and nothing is done about it, then the end is inevitable.

Comments about "declining demographics" among European peoples in both Europe and North America implicitly assume a declining population is a bad thing. I remember the United States when the population was less than 200 million. It not only didn't seem not empty, in many ways it was preferable to what we have now with approximately 320 million people.

Religions absorb races - it is the way of the world. Islam, for obvious geographic reasons, is mostly Asians, North Africans, Persians, etc. And in its peripheries has reached well into Black Africa as well as the East Asians and even the Europeans (Bosnians and Albanians being the obvious ones).

eventually white people will have changing demographics

I agree with this. Those White Europeans that arise will likely not have much in common with the current culture of much of Europe - I personally believe they will have quite a bit in common with a lot of traditional culture from the Muslim world, whether it be patriarchy, publicly religious, etc. Of course I could be wrong, but post-modernists seem to be self-eradicating; I cannot tell whether they hate others or themselves more.

A note on the Bosnians/Albanians; do not judge them simply by what emerges after the reign of communism. They have very deep spiritual roots in Islam (that many had beaten out of them by the communists). Their native Islam is not Salafi-Wahhabi. Rather it is rooted in the various Sufi orders like the Halveti and Naqshbandi and in the Hanafi school. Thousands upon thousands of them migrated into the inner Muslim lands of Anatolia, Levant, Egypt, etc. to avoid living under non-Muslim rule once the Ottomans fell. They produced some of our great contemporary scholars in the field of hadith studies.

This guy is Central Asian, but somebody mentioned Tatars here early on. I wonder if they’ve been involved in any jihadi activity in modern times. I don’t follow these things closely, but I’ve never heard of it. The Volga Tatars could be the smartest Muslim ethnic group on Earth, probably around 100 IQ, which would explain the secularism.

The thing about that is - if a security service wants to do something like this what are their options?

1) use their own people

2) pay someone to do it

3) help someone who already wants to do it

The correlation here is with (3).

I agree. And we recently had almost the entire Washington consensus screeching hysterically and demanding an explanation for why Putin and his “KGB” are allowed to get away with trying to bring down their republic. The deep state may have felt they had to give Putin a bloody nose just to prove their manhood to Congress and the media.

You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

See my comment above about race and Islam. Kicking out all the Muslims (and other non whites) is something I have no qualms in supporting. You see no matter how low the birth rates decline the idea that population will get to zero is just not likely, eventually the population dynamics will change, eventually white people will have changing demographics. However, if their land are already occupied by other people and nothing is done about it, then the end is inevitable.

Comments about “declining demographics” among European peoples in both Europe and North America implicitly assume a declining population is a bad thing. I remember the United States when the population was less than 200 million. It not only didn’t seem not empty, in many ways it was preferable to what we have now with approximately 320 million people.

Ethnically, aren’t the Volga Tatars substantially Slavic? I was looking at photos of some online and they look very European too me, at least the Google/bing provided images, like at least half way genetically.

Yes, this is correct, Tatars cluster very close to non-North Russians/East Slavs (unlike Bashkirs who are more distinct).

And Glossy's guess is also correct, the fragmentary evidence from PISA 2009 indicates Tatarstan has an IQ that might be slightly higher than the Russian average.

This is confirmed by a study by Lynn and Grigoriev on Soviet psychometrics testing in the late 20s/early 30s (incidentally, IQ tests were banned in 1936 as insulting to minorities): "The results of these studies showed socioeconomic differences of 12 IQ points between the children of white collar and blue collar workers, and that with the exception of the Tartars the ethnic minorities obtained lower IQs than European Russians." The Tartars had scores equal to that of ethnic Russians.

Chechens fight for Russia in Syria. There are all-Chechen units in Syria on the Russian (and Assad) side.

I'd be very surprised if there are more Chechens on Russia's/Assad's side in Syria than on that of Islamic State and FSA/Al Nusra.

Even in Ukraine the balance seems to have been at best even.

Moreover, realistically speaking, a good percentage of the Chechens on Russia's side are there because Kadyrov sent them, whereas those who went to fight for Ukraine and the Syrian rebels/IS went there of their own free will.

You view Russian problems through American, or say Western prism.

The Muslims who immigrated to Europe in the 1950s-60s were reasonably patriotic and hardworking, though duller than the natives. Many came from reasonably enlightened countries, such as Turkey.

Their progeny tend to be much less hardworking, not any more intelligent, tend to have a chip on their shoulder regarding their host countries because of their lack of socioeconomic success and Leftist agitation, are responsible for almost all serious terrorism, and form heavily criminalized underclasses in the urban underbellies of the old continenent. These underclasses look set to remain indefinitely, because Muslims tend not to outmarry outside their religion and even extended families (unlike, say, American Latinos).

Possibly making analogies with the European experience and looking at statistics might be me seeing things from "a Western prism," and Russia will in fact be a glaring exception to this pattern. But I would rather not bet on that.

PS. While you correct that Central Asians are not radical by global Muslim standards, there are differences between them as well, with Kazakhs and Kyrgyz being more civilized, while Tajiks are not far away from Pakistanis in their social attitudes on questions like the permissibility of honor killings. The head of special police in Tajikistan famously defected to Islamic State a couple of years ago.

Go and visit North Caucasus, if you wish I’ll connect you with Dagestan.

Thanks for the offer, I have discussed going to Dagestan with some friends (though Crimea and Donbass are higher on our list).

There are more troubles connected with some Christian minorities than with Muslim ones.

Which ones?

The Armenians bombed a few metro stations back during the Soviet Union, though that's about it.

I suppose Georgians are also a problem in that they are massively overrepresented in the ranks of organized crime.

I am not the biggest fan of immigration from the South Caucasus either, though I tend to like Armenians.

The very important (for Russia) war in Syria precludes any anti-Muslim measures to be taken in Russia.

1. I don't see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.

2. I am not calling for any anti-Muslim measures (unless denying that Tajiks have an inalienable right to immigrate to Russia is implicitly anti-Muslim).

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.
[I don’t see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.]
I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught. On the other hand, it would certainly make your lame agitation more popular, so there’s that.

I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught.

Wait, so, the biggest benefit of fighting the Syrian war is not warm water ports, or an airbase in the Levant, or XP gain for Russian fighter pilots, or fighting Islamists in a foreign country instead of Russia itself, or distracting attention from Ukraine, or just sticking it to America, is... "meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught"?

Lame.

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.

That seems to be true, Uzbeks and especially Tajiks are certainly more radical than the others.

Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

$50 billion for soft power that cratered two weeks later anyway seems excessive.

In any case, one event is enough. The Olympics, World Cup, etc. are things that just about any banana republic can run.

Going to Mars would probably cost less and be at least 10x more prestigious (not that that is a great idea either).

Has there ever been a terrorist attack in Russia pinned on Central Asian Muslims?

Just a few months ago: The Uzbek nanny Bobokulova, who decapitated the child she was paid to care for and walked around the streets shouting allah akbaring, and it took the glorious Russian police almost an hour to take her into custody.

The shrinks concluded she was mentally disturbed and this had nothing to do with Islam and she was deported to Uzbekistan. Maybe she'll be back in a few years, who knows.

I can't think of any other high-profile terrorist attacks by Central Asians, but I think it's only a matter of time before they start cropping up. A few months ago I recall news of an Islamic State cell being uncovered amongst Tajik immigrants.

But this is Russia, so the Rotenbergs will get their cut and the wall will have enough holes in it to drive through truckloads of illegal Tajiks .

Anyhow, more seriously, it would still probably be cheaper than the World Cup Russia is putting on in 2018 for who knows what reason.

Also a wall is the extreme solutions; visa regime and strict vetting at a minimum.

[Anyhow, more seriously, it would still probably be cheaper than the World Cup Russia is putting on in 2018 for who knows what reason.]
Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

Are those sporting events really important though? I don't see how Russia's image profited from the Sochi olympics (apart maybe from right-wing dissidents who contrasted its opening ceremony with that rather disgusting one of the London 2012 games).

[Anyhow, more seriously, it would still probably be cheaper than the World Cup Russia is putting on in 2018 for who knows what reason.]
Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

Are those sporting events really important though? I don’t see how Russia’s image profited from the Sochi olympics (apart maybe from right-wing dissidents who contrasted its opening ceremony with that rather disgusting one of the London 2012 games).

I don’t see how Russia’s image profited from the Sochi olympics (apart maybe from right-wing dissidents…

It probably helped stop ww3 over Syria (depending how likely you think that was to start ww3) as those pro-putin (ish) right wingers – patriotic types who might usually be easily manipulated into supporting a war – were a significant factor in the push back against the drive for Iraq 2.0 in Syria from 2013 onwards – and stuff like Sochi being so unpozzed compared to the west was a factor in them being pro-putin (ish).

Ethnically, aren't the Volga Tatars substantially Slavic? I was looking at photos of some online and they look very European too me, at least the Google/bing provided images, like at least half way genetically.

Despite whatever is written in the Russian constitution, Russia is NOT secular. Nor is Greece. The Orthodoxy does not surrender to secularity that easy ))
I am against all migrations (but not against migrants, though!). So I am not in favour of migrations to Russia proper from N.Caucasus or C. Asia. Perhaps Russia may re-institute the instrument of propiska (registration) which allowed to block internal migration in the Soviet days. However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty. Their countries are also economically very troubled, as a result of Soviet collapse.
As for Armenians, one can like or dislike them, but they present a formidable lobby within Russia and persistently sabotage rapprochement with Turkey. They also buy lands and houses in surprising speed, and are likely to make quarrel with Muslims of Russia.
Georgians and Armenians are also extremely ethno-nationalists, like Jews, but even worse. This is trouble for Russia in many ways. On the other hand, Azeris, their neighbours, are not nationalist at all, and so they are easy to be with.
The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.
Anatol, I suggest you look up Roman Yushkov of Perm (on the Facebook), and critically valuate his input.
And lastly, regarding Israel, I am in favour of one state for Muslims, Christians, Jews and whoever lives now in the Holy Land. And I am against immigration into the Holy Land for anybody of any faith.

However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty.

Why does Russia have an obligation to provide make-work for Tajiks? (who keep local wages down and hamper automation)

I am not sure we live in the same country - many Gastarbaiters struggle with the Russian language, this is a frequent complaint here as you doubtless know.

Polls indicate they are pro-Russian for now but I wonder to what extent this will last (that is, beyond Russia's open borders and open pocketbook). For instance, see the open barter for Manas Airbase between the US and Russia, and Uzbekistan's ever shifting alliances depending on whoever last gave Karimov the better deal.

The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.

So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today.

Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground.

Ethnically, aren't the Volga Tatars substantially Slavic? I was looking at photos of some online and they look very European too me, at least the Google/bing provided images, like at least half way genetically.

Yes, this is correct, Tatars cluster very close to non-North Russians/East Slavs (unlike Bashkirs who are more distinct).

And Glossy’s guess is also correct, the fragmentary evidence from PISA 2009 indicates Tatarstan has an IQ that might be slightly higher than the Russian average.

This is confirmed by a study by Lynn and Grigoriev on Soviet psychometrics testing in the late 20s/early 30s (incidentally, IQ tests were banned in 1936 as insulting to minorities): “The results of these studies showed socioeconomic differences of 12 IQ points between the children of white collar and blue collar workers, and that with the exception of the Tartars the ethnic minorities obtained lower IQs than European Russians.” The Tartars had scores equal to that of ethnic Russians.

“The results of these studies showed socioeconomic differences of 12 IQ points between the children of white collar and blue collar workers, and that with the exception of the Tartars the ethnic minorities obtained lower IQs than European Russians.” The Tartars had scores equal to that of ethnic Russians.

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.
[I don’t see how the war in Syria is particularly important for Russia. I support Assad, and its good training for the Russian Air Force, but Syria itself is almost useless as an ally.]
I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught. On the other hand, it would certainly make your lame agitation more popular, so there's that.

I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught.

Wait, so, the biggest benefit of fighting the Syrian war is not warm water ports, or an airbase in the Levant, or XP gain for Russian fighter pilots, or fighting Islamists in a foreign country instead of Russia itself, or distracting attention from Ukraine, or just sticking it to America, is… “meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught”?

Lame.

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.

That seems to be true, Uzbeks and especially Tajiks are certainly more radical than the others.

Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

$50 billion for soft power that cratered two weeks later anyway seems excessive.

In any case, one event is enough. The Olympics, World Cup, etc. are things that just about any banana republic can run.

Going to Mars would probably cost less and be at least 10x more prestigious (not that that is a great idea either).

As Ezra Pound said, for a government to say it can't do something because it doesn't have the money is like saying it can't build roads because it doesn't have the kilometres. The only relevant criteria are the potential gain from success and the likelihood of achieving it. A manned Mars mission scores low on the latter.

I see a huge downside and no upside for Russia in meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught.

Wait, so, the biggest benefit of fighting the Syrian war is not warm water ports, or an airbase in the Levant, or XP gain for Russian fighter pilots, or fighting Islamists in a foreign country instead of Russia itself, or distracting attention from Ukraine, or just sticking it to America, is... "meekly surrendering her friends to the Judaeo-globalo-salafist onslaught"?

Lame.

Uzbeks and Tajiks give more terroristic trouble than Turkmen, Kazaks and Kirghiz because the urban tradition is stronger with the former, somewhat paradoxically.

That seems to be true, Uzbeks and especially Tajiks are certainly more radical than the others.

Soft power, how does it work? And why would anyone need circuses as well as bread?

$50 billion for soft power that cratered two weeks later anyway seems excessive.

In any case, one event is enough. The Olympics, World Cup, etc. are things that just about any banana republic can run.

Going to Mars would probably cost less and be at least 10x more prestigious (not that that is a great idea either).

As Ezra Pound said, for a government to say it can’t do something because it doesn’t have the money is like saying it can’t build roads because it doesn’t have the kilometres. The only relevant criteria are the potential gain from success and the likelihood of achieving it. A manned Mars mission scores low on the latter.

Despite whatever is written in the Russian constitution, Russia is NOT secular. Nor is Greece. The Orthodoxy does not surrender to secularity that easy ))
I am against all migrations (but not against migrants, though!). So I am not in favour of migrations to Russia proper from N.Caucasus or C. Asia. Perhaps Russia may re-institute the instrument of propiska (registration) which allowed to block internal migration in the Soviet days. However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty. Their countries are also economically very troubled, as a result of Soviet collapse.
As for Armenians, one can like or dislike them, but they present a formidable lobby within Russia and persistently sabotage rapprochement with Turkey. They also buy lands and houses in surprising speed, and are likely to make quarrel with Muslims of Russia.
Georgians and Armenians are also extremely ethno-nationalists, like Jews, but even worse. This is trouble for Russia in many ways. On the other hand, Azeris, their neighbours, are not nationalist at all, and so they are easy to be with.
The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.
Anatol, I suggest you look up Roman Yushkov of Perm (on the Facebook), and critically valuate his input.
And lastly, regarding Israel, I am in favour of one state for Muslims, Christians, Jews and whoever lives now in the Holy Land. And I am against immigration into the Holy Land for anybody of any faith.

However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty.

Why does Russia have an obligation to provide make-work for Tajiks? (who keep local wages down and hamper automation)

I am not sure we live in the same country – many Gastarbaiters struggle with the Russian language, this is a frequent complaint here as you doubtless know.

Polls indicate they are pro-Russian for now but I wonder to what extent this will last (that is, beyond Russia’s open borders and open pocketbook). For instance, see the open barter for Manas Airbase between the US and Russia, and Uzbekistan’s ever shifting alliances depending on whoever last gave Karimov the better deal.

The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.

So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today.

Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground.

Speaking of Gastarbeiters with poor Russian, I have to admit that I am often embarrased when an Uzbeki cabbie speaks better Russian than I do. But I'm pretty sure that I am treated better here than any Uzbeki and that this is because of my fair skin and level of education despite my poor Russian grammar. The question of skin hue is an ancient cognitive bug, but the question of intelligence and education is surely relevant. There is no shortage here of ethnic Russians sufficiently competent to drive taxis, and once the robots are driving the taxis, all cabbies, Russian or Uzbeki, are in trouble. So I agree with you that there should limits on immigration. But do you agree that there is a place in modern Russia for immigrants with special skills or knowledge? Suppose you happened to have a highly intelligent Uzbek. (They exist. I sometimes review their job applications.) Almost certainly he'd speak Russian better than I do, and in many ways Russia would be a more obviously desirable place for him than for me and he would be more likely to make a deep investment in Russian society. Nonetheless he would be treated worse than I am simply because of skin hue, eye shape, and the religion of his grandmother. This really is a cognitive bug and does no one any good. Of course I am talking about the tail of the distribution, and you are talking about the bulk of it. But the tails are important too.

[So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia]
An intervention in October 2015 is going to be blamed for a decision not to openly intervene taken at latest in April 2014?
[in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today]
The dog is retrieving the downed goose as we speak. It may be the current year, but winning never goes out of style.
[Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground]
Genuine Eurasianists have never been interested in the Levant at all.

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

We can disagree on this, but that wasn't my point. If you want to know what my point is, then look at this video. Then tell me why these women are covering their hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQYf8LsD1dc

Then explain to me why God stops watching you once you step out of church. Hijab is and has always been a religious issue for us - the secularist will draw his own conclusion. Unless you think the Virgin Mary (pbuh) would simply cast aside her veil (look at the icon behind Putin) to 'modern up' and get in line for an education - is that the going price for feminine modesty these days?

As far as whatever disease Europe has caught, I can tell you it is killing off the population faster than any current active plague. You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

Peace.

*It's probably best if the get they hell outta Dodge before the SHTF in countries that have massive welfare liabilities and declining populations.

Since I’m not Muslim, I have nothing to say about the hijab, except that it has always been obvious to me that it is mostly a question of religion or at least traditional modesty and only occasionally a political statement. About the headscarf in Orthodox churches, however, I do have a few things to add. It really does seem to be a question of traditional modesty and done in deference to the Mother of God and not a strict religious imperative, which is why it is not surprising that even quite conservative Orthodox Christian women (say wives of priests) do not wear it all of the time. And there is a surprisingly old precedent for this, namely the mosaic in the apse of Santa Prassede in Rome, which depicts two Roman patrician women without headscarves and on quite friendly and informal terms with the apostles Peter and Paul: http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Rome%20&%20Central%20Italy/Rome/Rome_Churches/Santa_Prassede/Santa_Prassede.htm

By the way, I had to look up “pbuh”. I was pleasantly surprised to find it was not another rude acronymn of the twitterbrains. Perhaps you know that angry atheists and even American “evangelicals” like to insult the Mother of Jesus, and that this is the surest way to enrage an Orthodox Christian. But contra Anatoly, my experience with Muslims (including your thoughtful comments here) has been uniformly one of mutual if guarded respect.

Usually when I converse with Christians (Orthodox or not) I can tell within a few minutes if they actually understand what their belief entails or if they basically take their marching orders from post-modern secularism. For most of them, their entire world view and their yardstick for measuring success, purpose, value, etc. is completely wrapped up in the same framework as a materialist - the religion is given lip service. Thus it is nice to hear people like yourself and Mr. Shamir chiming in.

You nailed it on the head. There is no doubt that the imperative for hijab (which not only governs how a woman dresses in public but also the kinds of male/female interactions) is a specifically religious mandate in Islam whereas among the Orthodox it would be tied in to traditional culture. Actually, even if you step back a century or so into traditional Lutheran Sweden, many women also used to wear normative dress that would be 100% Islamic compatible. This was simply the norm in traditional cultures that were primarily informed by religious outlook - where modesty, shyness and other such qualities were not only feminine but religiously praised.

Demanding women doff their head dress is a part of Russian history for sure, but it is the remnants of this relatively recent ideology which are (as Mr. Shamir points out) struggling for the soul of Russia in opposition to the Orthodox. It is the secular which takes offense when the maid-servants of God cover themselves in public.

like to insult the Mother of Jesus

Even the slightest denigration of the woman (whom the Qur'an puts forward as an exemplar of the pious) is at best a grave sin, if not outright disbelief.

However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty.

Why does Russia have an obligation to provide make-work for Tajiks? (who keep local wages down and hamper automation)

I am not sure we live in the same country - many Gastarbaiters struggle with the Russian language, this is a frequent complaint here as you doubtless know.

Polls indicate they are pro-Russian for now but I wonder to what extent this will last (that is, beyond Russia's open borders and open pocketbook). For instance, see the open barter for Manas Airbase between the US and Russia, and Uzbekistan's ever shifting alliances depending on whoever last gave Karimov the better deal.

The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.

So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today.

Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground.

Speaking of Gastarbeiters with poor Russian, I have to admit that I am often embarrased when an Uzbeki cabbie speaks better Russian than I do. But I’m pretty sure that I am treated better here than any Uzbeki and that this is because of my fair skin and level of education despite my poor Russian grammar. The question of skin hue is an ancient cognitive bug, but the question of intelligence and education is surely relevant. There is no shortage here of ethnic Russians sufficiently competent to drive taxis, and once the robots are driving the taxis, all cabbies, Russian or Uzbeki, are in trouble. So I agree with you that there should limits on immigration. But do you agree that there is a place in modern Russia for immigrants with special skills or knowledge? Suppose you happened to have a highly intelligent Uzbek. (They exist. I sometimes review their job applications.) Almost certainly he’d speak Russian better than I do, and in many ways Russia would be a more obviously desirable place for him than for me and he would be more likely to make a deep investment in Russian society. Nonetheless he would be treated worse than I am simply because of skin hue, eye shape, and the religion of his grandmother. This really is a cognitive bug and does no one any good. Of course I am talking about the tail of the distribution, and you are talking about the bulk of it. But the tails are important too.

Speaking of Gastarbeiters with poor Russian, I have to admit that I am often embarrased when an Uzbeki cabbie speaks better Russian than I do. But I'm pretty sure that I am treated better here than any Uzbeki and that this is because of my fair skin and level of education despite my poor Russian grammar. The question of skin hue is an ancient cognitive bug, but the question of intelligence and education is surely relevant. There is no shortage here of ethnic Russians sufficiently competent to drive taxis, and once the robots are driving the taxis, all cabbies, Russian or Uzbeki, are in trouble. So I agree with you that there should limits on immigration. But do you agree that there is a place in modern Russia for immigrants with special skills or knowledge? Suppose you happened to have a highly intelligent Uzbek. (They exist. I sometimes review their job applications.) Almost certainly he'd speak Russian better than I do, and in many ways Russia would be a more obviously desirable place for him than for me and he would be more likely to make a deep investment in Russian society. Nonetheless he would be treated worse than I am simply because of skin hue, eye shape, and the religion of his grandmother. This really is a cognitive bug and does no one any good. Of course I am talking about the tail of the distribution, and you are talking about the bulk of it. But the tails are important too.

Of course I am against discimination.

That said, why is it necessarily ethical to deprive Central Asia of its smart fractions (when they don’t have many of them in the first place)?

"That said, why is it necessarily ethical to deprive Central Asia of its smart fractions"

So very true! When I see the immigration debate, I always wonder this is not brought up more often. A person will try to better his lot in life, of course, but shouldn't we at least mention/emphasize a person's moral duty to his country/people? From what I've seen, the people, poorer or wealthier, who emigrate tend to be more enterprising, have a medium-term outlook, some skills and stronger work ethic. The very people who could most contribute to their home countries!

Of course, "refugee" status implies that bettering your country is not an option.

I'm not suggesting that Russia or any other country try to deliberately deprive another of its smart fractions. In fact, I know of some professional societies in the US that sent money to Russia in the 90s to try to keep their labour market from being flooded. It is simply a question of supply and demand (of both smart jobs and smart people). My question is about the midterm self-interest of the Russian state, not about what is good for central Asia. If you want to consider the latter, then you can make an argument that we should be funding smart jobs in central Asia, rather than employing smart central Asians in another country with a high expense of living. In fact, once the robots take over in developed countries, perhaps we should be sending unemployed intelligent people in developed countries to help out in developing ones.

As for there being no shortage of fairly intelligent Russians. This is true. However, a lot of intelligent Russians have been brainwashed by Western propaganda and think they are better off with mediocre and deteriorating opportunities there than they are with good and improving opportunities here. (Of course, in some fields, the opportunities here are worse than mediocre, but in others they are significantly better.) As for highly intelligent central Asians in the West, surely they exist, but I haven't met them, though I meet a fair number of them here, simply because there are a whole lot more central Asians here.

As I see it, a developed country (like the current Moscow city-state, for example) always has more demand than supply of *highly* intelligent people, while a developing country often has more supply than demand. The lower bound for "highly intelligent" may very well increase as more and more jobs are automated, as you have pointed out.

Should Russians wait until they are outnumbered by Muslims to do something about it?

Do you think that Muslims will treat non-Muslims peacefully, tolerantly, fairly in Russia once Muslim constitute even 40% of the national population?

Do you doubt that Muslims will constitute a much larger share of Russia's population, or the RF's population, in 20 years from now?

God bless and keep the Russian people, and all peoples plagued by islam in their midst.

I have always remembered a professor (of a Soviet Union 101 type course, no less) that use to say, when somebody mentioned the old adage of “wars are fought for territory or resources” that the adage was true, except for “the bloody borders of Islam”. At the time it struck me as peculiar, anachronistic, the last caliphate being long gone.

Yes, this is correct, Tatars cluster very close to non-North Russians/East Slavs (unlike Bashkirs who are more distinct).

And Glossy's guess is also correct, the fragmentary evidence from PISA 2009 indicates Tatarstan has an IQ that might be slightly higher than the Russian average.

This is confirmed by a study by Lynn and Grigoriev on Soviet psychometrics testing in the late 20s/early 30s (incidentally, IQ tests were banned in 1936 as insulting to minorities): "The results of these studies showed socioeconomic differences of 12 IQ points between the children of white collar and blue collar workers, and that with the exception of the Tartars the ethnic minorities obtained lower IQs than European Russians." The Tartars had scores equal to that of ethnic Russians.

“The results of these studies showed socioeconomic differences of 12 IQ points between the children of white collar and blue collar workers, and that with the exception of the Tartars the ethnic minorities obtained lower IQs than European Russians.” The Tartars had scores equal to that of ethnic Russians.

Also, I think a lot of the really smart Central Asians who do emigrate go not to Russia but to the West.

“That said, why is it necessarily ethical to deprive Central Asia of its smart fractions”

So very true! When I see the immigration debate, I always wonder this is not brought up more often. A person will try to better his lot in life, of course, but shouldn’t we at least mention/emphasize a person’s moral duty to his country/people? From what I’ve seen, the people, poorer or wealthier, who emigrate tend to be more enterprising, have a medium-term outlook, some skills and stronger work ethic. The very people who could most contribute to their home countries!

Of course, “refugee” status implies that bettering your country is not an option.

This is a fine point. But I have in mind specifically people who emigrate to "better their lot" simply by increasing their disposable income, but rather people who emigrate because there are few opportunities in their home countries to use the unique talents that they have. The immigrants with whom I am familiar are mostly high level scientists, and I am convinced that a number of them contribute more to their home countries by working abroad while organizing summer schools in their home countries from which they recruit students, many of whom do in time return to their home countries. China, India, and Russia are good examples of this phenomenon, in my experience. I've also heard good things about philanthropic projects of Armenian intellectuals, but I don't know much about this.

That said, the South Korean marriage is an urban legend. Putin's younger daughter is the gf of a Dutch businessman who used to work at Gazprom. The elder daughter is married to Kirill Shalamov, the son of a Jewish oligarch (the Trump comparisons keep piling on).

is there Russian anxiety about you guys getting cucked by Asian dudes?

Also, I think a lot of the really smart Central Asians who do emigrate go not to Russia but to the West.

I’m not suggesting that Russia or any other country try to deliberately deprive another of its smart fractions. In fact, I know of some professional societies in the US that sent money to Russia in the 90s to try to keep their labour market from being flooded. It is simply a question of supply and demand (of both smart jobs and smart people). My question is about the midterm self-interest of the Russian state, not about what is good for central Asia. If you want to consider the latter, then you can make an argument that we should be funding smart jobs in central Asia, rather than employing smart central Asians in another country with a high expense of living. In fact, once the robots take over in developed countries, perhaps we should be sending unemployed intelligent people in developed countries to help out in developing ones.

As for there being no shortage of fairly intelligent Russians. This is true. However, a lot of intelligent Russians have been brainwashed by Western propaganda and think they are better off with mediocre and deteriorating opportunities there than they are with good and improving opportunities here. (Of course, in some fields, the opportunities here are worse than mediocre, but in others they are significantly better.) As for highly intelligent central Asians in the West, surely they exist, but I haven’t met them, though I meet a fair number of them here, simply because there are a whole lot more central Asians here.

As I see it, a developed country (like the current Moscow city-state, for example) always has more demand than supply of *highly* intelligent people, while a developing country often has more supply than demand. The lower bound for “highly intelligent” may very well increase as more and more jobs are automated, as you have pointed out.

"That said, why is it necessarily ethical to deprive Central Asia of its smart fractions"

So very true! When I see the immigration debate, I always wonder this is not brought up more often. A person will try to better his lot in life, of course, but shouldn't we at least mention/emphasize a person's moral duty to his country/people? From what I've seen, the people, poorer or wealthier, who emigrate tend to be more enterprising, have a medium-term outlook, some skills and stronger work ethic. The very people who could most contribute to their home countries!

Of course, "refugee" status implies that bettering your country is not an option.

This is a fine point. But I have in mind specifically people who emigrate to “better their lot” simply by increasing their disposable income, but rather people who emigrate because there are few opportunities in their home countries to use the unique talents that they have. The immigrants with whom I am familiar are mostly high level scientists, and I am convinced that a number of them contribute more to their home countries by working abroad while organizing summer schools in their home countries from which they recruit students, many of whom do in time return to their home countries. China, India, and Russia are good examples of this phenomenon, in my experience. I’ve also heard good things about philanthropic projects of Armenian intellectuals, but I don’t know much about this.

True, a person who cares about his country will find the way to contribute. That would be the case of Mario Molina at MIT, for example. But what I see is often a disillusion with bad government, left or right, in third world and even some European countries, that makes qualified people long to get out and go to the U.S. or richer European countries. It's understandable, but what would be better is some promotion of the idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

And I don't say this with idealism, but rather out of ordinary prudence. How can we all fit in Germany or the U.S.? Plus, people tend to like the culture the grew up in, why not take care of it?

Since I'm not Muslim, I have nothing to say about the hijab, except that it has always been obvious to me that it is mostly a question of religion or at least traditional modesty and only occasionally a political statement. About the headscarf in Orthodox churches, however, I do have a few things to add. It really does seem to be a question of traditional modesty and done in deference to the Mother of God and not a strict religious imperative, which is why it is not surprising that even quite conservative Orthodox Christian women (say wives of priests) do not wear it all of the time. And there is a surprisingly old precedent for this, namely the mosaic in the apse of Santa Prassede in Rome, which depicts two Roman patrician women without headscarves and on quite friendly and informal terms with the apostles Peter and Paul: http://www.paradoxplace.com/Perspectives/Rome%20&%20Central%20Italy/Rome/Rome_Churches/Santa_Prassede/Santa_Prassede.htm

By the way, I had to look up "pbuh". I was pleasantly surprised to find it was not another rude acronymn of the twitterbrains. Perhaps you know that angry atheists and even American "evangelicals" like to insult the Mother of Jesus, and that this is the surest way to enrage an Orthodox Christian. But contra Anatoly, my experience with Muslims (including your thoughtful comments here) has been uniformly one of mutual if guarded respect.

Hey TBRC,

Usually when I converse with Christians (Orthodox or not) I can tell within a few minutes if they actually understand what their belief entails or if they basically take their marching orders from post-modern secularism. For most of them, their entire world view and their yardstick for measuring success, purpose, value, etc. is completely wrapped up in the same framework as a materialist – the religion is given lip service. Thus it is nice to hear people like yourself and Mr. Shamir chiming in.

You nailed it on the head. There is no doubt that the imperative for hijab (which not only governs how a woman dresses in public but also the kinds of male/female interactions) is a specifically religious mandate in Islam whereas among the Orthodox it would be tied in to traditional culture. Actually, even if you step back a century or so into traditional Lutheran Sweden, many women also used to wear normative dress that would be 100% Islamic compatible. This was simply the norm in traditional cultures that were primarily informed by religious outlook – where modesty, shyness and other such qualities were not only feminine but religiously praised.

Demanding women doff their head dress is a part of Russian history for sure, but it is the remnants of this relatively recent ideology which are (as Mr. Shamir points out) struggling for the soul of Russia in opposition to the Orthodox. It is the secular which takes offense when the maid-servants of God cover themselves in public.

like to insult the Mother of Jesus

Even the slightest denigration of the woman (whom the Qur’an puts forward as an exemplar of the pious) is at best a grave sin, if not outright disbelief.

A few comments about Orthodox Christian anthropology seem relevant to this discussion. The first is that, according to St. Paul, there is neither Greek nor barbarian, man nor woman, but all are one. In the eventual patristic synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought, man is considered to be a single essence existing in many persons, and that it is the tragedy of sin that although we are of a single essence, we are so often at war with each other. The second is that, even given this oneness, the difference between man and woman is fundamental, with Jesus being called the New Adam and Mary the New Eve, Jesus being the bridegroom, the Church being the bride, God being the Father, the Church being the Mother who suffers in labour to give birth to her children. The wearing of the headscarf when praying publicly is one expression of this, as is the practice (followed on average) that men stand on one side of the church, in front of the icon of Jesus, while women stand on the other, in front of the icon of Mary. In my experience, even in those Orthodox churches in Western countries where these particular practices have faded away (or didn't necessarily exist in the first place, like in the mosaic from Santa Prassede), the importance of the fundamental difference is still acknowledged.

If I had to put my finger on why I have had respectful interactions with Muslims, I think it is that we share a sense of the sacred, as opposed to the wide-spread irreverence of the post-modern world. Your comment about the mother of Jesus illustrates this very vividly. People say that in the Middle East in living memory Christians and Muslims would often visit the same shrines, for different reasons. And even today, near Bethlehem, Christians and Muslims have a picnic together for the feast of St. George (http://travelpalestine.ps/which-event/calendar-of-events/st-georges-feast-al-khader-village/).

You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

See my comment above about race and Islam. Kicking out all the Muslims (and other non whites) is something I have no qualms in supporting. You see no matter how low the birth rates decline the idea that population will get to zero is just not likely, eventually the population dynamics will change, eventually white people will have changing demographics. However, if their land are already occupied by other people and nothing is done about it, then the end is inevitable.

Hey neutral,

See my comment above about race and Islam.

Religions absorb races – it is the way of the world. Islam, for obvious geographic reasons, is mostly Asians, North Africans, Persians, etc. And in its peripheries has reached well into Black Africa as well as the East Asians and even the Europeans (Bosnians and Albanians being the obvious ones).

eventually white people will have changing demographics

I agree with this. Those White Europeans that arise will likely not have much in common with the current culture of much of Europe – I personally believe they will have quite a bit in common with a lot of traditional culture from the Muslim world, whether it be patriarchy, publicly religious, etc. Of course I could be wrong, but post-modernists seem to be self-eradicating; I cannot tell whether they hate others or themselves more.

A note on the Bosnians/Albanians; do not judge them simply by what emerges after the reign of communism. They have very deep spiritual roots in Islam (that many had beaten out of them by the communists). Their native Islam is not Salafi-Wahhabi. Rather it is rooted in the various Sufi orders like the Halveti and Naqshbandi and in the Hanafi school. Thousands upon thousands of them migrated into the inner Muslim lands of Anatolia, Levant, Egypt, etc. to avoid living under non-Muslim rule once the Ottomans fell. They produced some of our great contemporary scholars in the field of hadith studies.

But to my mind, Islam would be a “cure” in some ways even worse than the disease.

We can disagree on this, but that wasn't my point. If you want to know what my point is, then look at this video. Then tell me why these women are covering their hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQYf8LsD1dc

Then explain to me why God stops watching you once you step out of church. Hijab is and has always been a religious issue for us - the secularist will draw his own conclusion. Unless you think the Virgin Mary (pbuh) would simply cast aside her veil (look at the icon behind Putin) to 'modern up' and get in line for an education - is that the going price for feminine modesty these days?

As far as whatever disease Europe has caught, I can tell you it is killing off the population faster than any current active plague. You can kick out all the Muslims*, but unless European countries get their populations out of free fall, you are simply delaying the inevitable.

Peace.

*It's probably best if the get they hell outta Dodge before the SHTF in countries that have massive welfare liabilities and declining populations.

Minor personal note, Talha: my father’s mother, born in the USA to Slovak parents, used to cover her head thus in church.

But for one thing, the succeeding generation gave up that habit. The women didn’t become promiscuous sluts with perverse anti-family priorities and lifestyle like many of today’s Western women.

The women of our family in the USA after that generation still dressed with appropriate modesty and made a priority of motherhood and the perpetuation of our family and nation — but they dropped the head coverings. They did so largely out of a laudable desire to fully assimilate and to be SEEN as fully assimilating.

More to the point, wearing a hijab or similar covering in a non-Muslim country can be and often is an aggressive political statement, that Muslims intend to remake, influence, and then control our societies. As I find islam to be particularly illogical and dangerous — even compared to other religions, which all seem susceptible to some such criticism — and don’t want a muslim society, I don’t favor women wearing such coverings here with the symbolism and message that tends to convey.

You are a very effective apologist for islam in our countries. I wonder how much you will still find the need to persuade rather than coerce if muslims continue to grow as a share of our population and become more demanding. You (collectively) can be very respectable and courteous until you gain strength in a society, then the kaffirs had better watch out.

They did so largely out of a laudable desire to fully assimilate and to be SEEN as fully assimilating.

If those are the required parameters of assimilation, don't hold your breath. There are some things that are cultural; polygamy, endogamy, language, food, mosque architecture, etiquette, etc. Most of these, Muslims can reject or adopt just fine - a Muslim in Senegal does not live like a Muslim in Chechnya or Oman. But immutable religious parameters break for no one. This religion is called submission for a reason; a man cannot serve two masters - it is that simple.

Muslims intend to remake, influence, and then control our societies

Which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Listen, this is demographic reality - what, you didn't vote last election with the intention to change things? I can guarantee you that a majority Mormon US will not operate exactly like it does now. The West has been remade, influenced and controlled already - Muslims haven't brought you to the point you're at now. We're just a nuisance because of the point the West is already at. The West can easily stop this without full expulsions or anything. Muslims can be made into a restricted class of citizenry with limited political rights - such as only the ability to vote in nothing above county elections.

I don’t favor women wearing such coverings here with the symbolism and message that tends to convey.

Nuns? If you were to have an epiphany and see a vision of the Virgin Mary (pbuh) - I'll assume you wouldn't blurt out; take that off you bint, this is America!

You are a very effective apologist for islam in our countries.

Most people have dealt Salafi-Wahhabi extremists (who get a boatload of air time) or Modernist-type Muslims whose entire discourse is predicated on Left-liberal assumptions. Here meet some; they are married to gay men and they drink - hooray!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9dwHYu_EK4

They are not immune from the effects of post-modern koolaid - drink it at your own risk. What I'm speaking is the tradition that has anchored this faith for 14 centuries; Sunni Orthodoxy - it doesn't get much air time, but speaks for itself. My teachers have taught me that our only obligation is to present it as it is - as it was handed down to us; not obfuscate or water down. If people like it - great, if they don't - fine.

You (collectively) can be very respectable and courteous until you gain strength in a society, then the kaffirs had better watch out.

This is the power dynamic of any majority/minority situation. I can say there are some Muslim societies which do very well in upholding and guarding the rights of their non-Muslim citizens and some that are horrific failures on that front (usually stability has a lot to do with it - Iraq being exhibit A). What will or won't occur in the West (assuming Muslims don't get the collective boot in the first place)? I don't know the future, but leaders like this (a convert that has studied the tradition thoroughly - including being grounded as a Sufi) give me hope - because ultimately, and I personally see little escape from this, European Islam will largely be defined by an adoption of it by Whites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18_XdY8T51g

However, temporary employment for Tajik and Kirgiz is necessary to provide: unless Russia would incorporate these countries within its structure. They are very-pro-Russian; they are culturally integrated, they speak Russian and have no other loyalty.

Why does Russia have an obligation to provide make-work for Tajiks? (who keep local wages down and hamper automation)

I am not sure we live in the same country - many Gastarbaiters struggle with the Russian language, this is a frequent complaint here as you doubtless know.

Polls indicate they are pro-Russian for now but I wonder to what extent this will last (that is, beyond Russia's open borders and open pocketbook). For instance, see the open barter for Manas Airbase between the US and Russia, and Uzbekistan's ever shifting alliances depending on whoever last gave Karimov the better deal.

The war in Syria is very important for Russia: it helped Russia to get out of preoccupation with Ukraine; Syria and Palestine are territories Russians tried to colonise before WWI. It is likely to become a Mediterranean part of Russia, or Russian sphere of influence, on the other side of Bosporus, undoing a possible siege of Russian shipping.

So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today.

Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground.

[So basically it helped deflect the Kremlin deflect Russian attention from the plight of its co-ethnics (and co-religionists) in a core territory of Big Russia]
An intervention in October 2015 is going to be blamed for a decision not to openly intervene taken at latest in April 2014?
[in favor of a wild goose chase in lands with zero cultural connections (Russia: 80% Orthodox or atheist; Syria: 70% Sunni Muslim) on the basis of 19th century geopolitical considerations that are confused and completely irrelevant to today]
The dog is retrieving the downed goose as we speak. It may be the current year, but winning never goes out of style.
[Eurasianist geopolitical geniuses are going to drive Russia into the ground]
Genuine Eurasianists have never been interested in the Levant at all.

Religions absorb races - it is the way of the world. Islam, for obvious geographic reasons, is mostly Asians, North Africans, Persians, etc. And in its peripheries has reached well into Black Africa as well as the East Asians and even the Europeans (Bosnians and Albanians being the obvious ones).

eventually white people will have changing demographics

I agree with this. Those White Europeans that arise will likely not have much in common with the current culture of much of Europe - I personally believe they will have quite a bit in common with a lot of traditional culture from the Muslim world, whether it be patriarchy, publicly religious, etc. Of course I could be wrong, but post-modernists seem to be self-eradicating; I cannot tell whether they hate others or themselves more.

A note on the Bosnians/Albanians; do not judge them simply by what emerges after the reign of communism. They have very deep spiritual roots in Islam (that many had beaten out of them by the communists). Their native Islam is not Salafi-Wahhabi. Rather it is rooted in the various Sufi orders like the Halveti and Naqshbandi and in the Hanafi school. Thousands upon thousands of them migrated into the inner Muslim lands of Anatolia, Levant, Egypt, etc. to avoid living under non-Muslim rule once the Ottomans fell. They produced some of our great contemporary scholars in the field of hadith studies.

Peace.

“Hadith studies”? How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

Indeed. There was a time when the most praiseworthy 'profession' one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life - the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres. The voice for the what exactly the Divine expects or demands out of us. In that time also, usually it was the singers and entertainers which were considered one of the most lowly professions, something that was a monopoly of the degenerates and dregs of society.

My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus (pbuh).

It looks like too many in the West have found a new master, and it demands that they reorient what is valuable - we are watching from a guarded distance. We do not like the road this master is treading. We'll keep the old Master, though the world pass us by.
"And be not like those who forgot God, so He made them forget their own selves. Those are the transgressors." (59:19)

I find your commentary on Russia here and elsewhere very interesting and insightful. Could you elaborate on the “shadow” group to which you refer? There are some who assert that Putin is in the center of a 5-spoke wheel, balancing the interests of the siloviki, (what might be described as) patriots, nationalists, liberals, and communists. I think there’s a lot of truth to that, but I’ve always suspected that it’s the siloviki (the shadow group to which you refer?) who are keeping the others at bay while acting on a long-term strategy (though perhaps it’s wishful thinking that Russia has one) and Putin is a (very intelligent and articulate) figurehead. What’s your take?

I'm not suggesting that Russia or any other country try to deliberately deprive another of its smart fractions. In fact, I know of some professional societies in the US that sent money to Russia in the 90s to try to keep their labour market from being flooded. It is simply a question of supply and demand (of both smart jobs and smart people). My question is about the midterm self-interest of the Russian state, not about what is good for central Asia. If you want to consider the latter, then you can make an argument that we should be funding smart jobs in central Asia, rather than employing smart central Asians in another country with a high expense of living. In fact, once the robots take over in developed countries, perhaps we should be sending unemployed intelligent people in developed countries to help out in developing ones.

As for there being no shortage of fairly intelligent Russians. This is true. However, a lot of intelligent Russians have been brainwashed by Western propaganda and think they are better off with mediocre and deteriorating opportunities there than they are with good and improving opportunities here. (Of course, in some fields, the opportunities here are worse than mediocre, but in others they are significantly better.) As for highly intelligent central Asians in the West, surely they exist, but I haven't met them, though I meet a fair number of them here, simply because there are a whole lot more central Asians here.

As I see it, a developed country (like the current Moscow city-state, for example) always has more demand than supply of *highly* intelligent people, while a developing country often has more supply than demand. The lower bound for "highly intelligent" may very well increase as more and more jobs are automated, as you have pointed out.

Hey TBRS,

In fact, I know of some professional societies in the US that sent money to Russia in the 90s to try to keep their labour market from being flooded.

Was that the NHL?

I remember in the 90′s after the draft opened up to Russian players – it was crazy! Mogilny, Federov, Bure, Konstantinov, Zubov, etc. – still have some of their rookie cards.

This is a fine point. But I have in mind specifically people who emigrate to "better their lot" simply by increasing their disposable income, but rather people who emigrate because there are few opportunities in their home countries to use the unique talents that they have. The immigrants with whom I am familiar are mostly high level scientists, and I am convinced that a number of them contribute more to their home countries by working abroad while organizing summer schools in their home countries from which they recruit students, many of whom do in time return to their home countries. China, India, and Russia are good examples of this phenomenon, in my experience. I've also heard good things about philanthropic projects of Armenian intellectuals, but I don't know much about this.

True, a person who cares about his country will find the way to contribute. That would be the case of Mario Molina at MIT, for example. But what I see is often a disillusion with bad government, left or right, in third world and even some European countries, that makes qualified people long to get out and go to the U.S. or richer European countries. It’s understandable, but what would be better is some promotion of the idea of “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.

And I don’t say this with idealism, but rather out of ordinary prudence. How can we all fit in Germany or the U.S.? Plus, people tend to like the culture the grew up in, why not take care of it?

"Hadith studies"? How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

Hey RC,

How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

Indeed. There was a time when the most praiseworthy ‘profession’ one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life – the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres. The voice for the what exactly the Divine expects or demands out of us. In that time also, usually it was the singers and entertainers which were considered one of the most lowly professions, something that was a monopoly of the degenerates and dregs of society.

My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus (pbuh).

It looks like too many in the West have found a new master, and it demands that they reorient what is valuable – we are watching from a guarded distance. We do not like the road this master is treading. We’ll keep the old Master, though the world pass us by.
“And be not like those who forgot God, so He made them forget their own selves. Those are the transgressors.” (59:19)

"My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus "

That's a tired cliché, like many religious apologists you take the easy way by suggesting non-believers are motivated by some crass materialism or egocentric hedonism full of promiscuity, drugs etc. No, we (or a lot of us, obviously I can't speak for everyone) simply don't believe in your claims to have privileged access to some divine revealed truth (obviously that would only apply to Christianity and Islam which contain very specific statements about the course of history and God's intervention in it, not or much less so to other belief systems like Hinduism, Buddhism or the varieties of ancient paganism). You can of course choose to react to this with moralizing about degenerates, but that rather misses the point and just seems to indicate that any attempt at dialogue is ultimately futile.

"There was a time when the most praiseworthy ‘profession’ one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life – the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres."

Yeah, those were the days.

Those were the days when the priesthood ate better than anybody else.

But at least they kept open "the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres."

Usually when I converse with Christians (Orthodox or not) I can tell within a few minutes if they actually understand what their belief entails or if they basically take their marching orders from post-modern secularism. For most of them, their entire world view and their yardstick for measuring success, purpose, value, etc. is completely wrapped up in the same framework as a materialist - the religion is given lip service. Thus it is nice to hear people like yourself and Mr. Shamir chiming in.

You nailed it on the head. There is no doubt that the imperative for hijab (which not only governs how a woman dresses in public but also the kinds of male/female interactions) is a specifically religious mandate in Islam whereas among the Orthodox it would be tied in to traditional culture. Actually, even if you step back a century or so into traditional Lutheran Sweden, many women also used to wear normative dress that would be 100% Islamic compatible. This was simply the norm in traditional cultures that were primarily informed by religious outlook - where modesty, shyness and other such qualities were not only feminine but religiously praised.

Demanding women doff their head dress is a part of Russian history for sure, but it is the remnants of this relatively recent ideology which are (as Mr. Shamir points out) struggling for the soul of Russia in opposition to the Orthodox. It is the secular which takes offense when the maid-servants of God cover themselves in public.

like to insult the Mother of Jesus

Even the slightest denigration of the woman (whom the Qur'an puts forward as an exemplar of the pious) is at best a grave sin, if not outright disbelief.

Peace.

A few comments about Orthodox Christian anthropology seem relevant to this discussion. The first is that, according to St. Paul, there is neither Greek nor barbarian, man nor woman, but all are one. In the eventual patristic synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought, man is considered to be a single essence existing in many persons, and that it is the tragedy of sin that although we are of a single essence, we are so often at war with each other. The second is that, even given this oneness, the difference between man and woman is fundamental, with Jesus being called the New Adam and Mary the New Eve, Jesus being the bridegroom, the Church being the bride, God being the Father, the Church being the Mother who suffers in labour to give birth to her children. The wearing of the headscarf when praying publicly is one expression of this, as is the practice (followed on average) that men stand on one side of the church, in front of the icon of Jesus, while women stand on the other, in front of the icon of Mary. In my experience, even in those Orthodox churches in Western countries where these particular practices have faded away (or didn’t necessarily exist in the first place, like in the mosaic from Santa Prassede), the importance of the fundamental difference is still acknowledged.

If I had to put my finger on why I have had respectful interactions with Muslims, I think it is that we share a sense of the sacred, as opposed to the wide-spread irreverence of the post-modern world. Your comment about the mother of Jesus illustrates this very vividly. People say that in the Middle East in living memory Christians and Muslims would often visit the same shrines, for different reasons. And even today, near Bethlehem, Christians and Muslims have a picnic together for the feast of St. George (http://travelpalestine.ps/which-event/calendar-of-events/st-georges-feast-al-khader-village/).

Indeed, this just by itself is a rebellion against the current order which wants to reduce us down to mere chemical machines that can simply be adjusted this way and that if we tweak enough genes or genitals - whatever the case may be. Your description of the roles of the Son of Mary (pbuh), his mother (pbuh) and the church are much appreciated.

People say that in the Middle East in living memory Christians and Muslims would often visit the same shrines, for different reasons.

It is at this point in history that we can try to encourage the best of historical interactions between Christians and Muslims going forward. As I've seen people like Mr. Shamir do. Or we can be mired in the worst of the past and scream at each other about conquests and crusades during the age of empires. We have an imperfect but workable international framework and our destructive capability is just too much to consider taking the wrong moves.

I like what I see in Jordan for instance. Is it perfect? Of course not, but the king is a descendant of the noble Prophetic household and born through the womb of a Christian mother. The government of Jordan can use fixing with corruption and what not, but it is fairly equitable and accommodating with its religious minorities (there is even the historic Armenian Quarter in Amman that was a refuge for Armenian Christians fleeing the slaughter in Turkey back in the day). And it has the backing of the traditional old-guard Sunni scholarship (I took some classes under a scholar who learned under the late Grand Mufti of Jordan). The stability of these governments should (if not encouraged) at least not be disturbed.

Minor personal note, Talha: my father's mother, born in the USA to Slovak parents, used to cover her head thus in church.

But for one thing, the succeeding generation gave up that habit. The women didn't become promiscuous sluts with perverse anti-family priorities and lifestyle like many of today's Western women.

The women of our family in the USA after that generation still dressed with appropriate modesty and made a priority of motherhood and the perpetuation of our family and nation -- but they dropped the head coverings. They did so largely out of a laudable desire to fully assimilate and to be SEEN as fully assimilating.

More to the point, wearing a hijab or similar covering in a non-Muslim country can be and often is an aggressive political statement, that Muslims intend to remake, influence, and then control our societies. As I find islam to be particularly illogical and dangerous -- even compared to other religions, which all seem susceptible to some such criticism -- and don't want a muslim society, I don't favor women wearing such coverings here with the symbolism and message that tends to convey.

You are a very effective apologist for islam in our countries. I wonder how much you will still find the need to persuade rather than coerce if muslims continue to grow as a share of our population and become more demanding. You (collectively) can be very respectable and courteous until you gain strength in a society, then the kaffirs had better watch out.

They did so largely out of a laudable desire to fully assimilate and to be SEEN as fully assimilating.

If those are the required parameters of assimilation, don’t hold your breath. There are some things that are cultural; polygamy, endogamy, language, food, mosque architecture, etiquette, etc. Most of these, Muslims can reject or adopt just fine – a Muslim in Senegal does not live like a Muslim in Chechnya or Oman. But immutable religious parameters break for no one. This religion is called submission for a reason; a man cannot serve two masters – it is that simple.

Muslims intend to remake, influence, and then control our societies

Which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Listen, this is demographic reality – what, you didn’t vote last election with the intention to change things? I can guarantee you that a majority Mormon US will not operate exactly like it does now. The West has been remade, influenced and controlled already – Muslims haven’t brought you to the point you’re at now. We’re just a nuisance because of the point the West is already at. The West can easily stop this without full expulsions or anything. Muslims can be made into a restricted class of citizenry with limited political rights – such as only the ability to vote in nothing above county elections.

I don’t favor women wearing such coverings here with the symbolism and message that tends to convey.

Nuns? If you were to have an epiphany and see a vision of the Virgin Mary (pbuh) – I’ll assume you wouldn’t blurt out; take that off you bint, this is America!

You are a very effective apologist for islam in our countries.

Most people have dealt Salafi-Wahhabi extremists (who get a boatload of air time) or Modernist-type Muslims whose entire discourse is predicated on Left-liberal assumptions. Here meet some; they are married to gay men and they drink – hooray!

They are not immune from the effects of post-modern koolaid – drink it at your own risk. What I’m speaking is the tradition that has anchored this faith for 14 centuries; Sunni Orthodoxy – it doesn’t get much air time, but speaks for itself. My teachers have taught me that our only obligation is to present it as it is – as it was handed down to us; not obfuscate or water down. If people like it – great, if they don’t – fine.

You (collectively) can be very respectable and courteous until you gain strength in a society, then the kaffirs had better watch out.

This is the power dynamic of any majority/minority situation. I can say there are some Muslim societies which do very well in upholding and guarding the rights of their non-Muslim citizens and some that are horrific failures on that front (usually stability has a lot to do with it – Iraq being exhibit A). What will or won’t occur in the West (assuming Muslims don’t get the collective boot in the first place)? I don’t know the future, but leaders like this (a convert that has studied the tradition thoroughly – including being grounded as a Sufi) give me hope – because ultimately, and I personally see little escape from this, European Islam will largely be defined by an adoption of it by Whites:

How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

Indeed. There was a time when the most praiseworthy 'profession' one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life - the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres. The voice for the what exactly the Divine expects or demands out of us. In that time also, usually it was the singers and entertainers which were considered one of the most lowly professions, something that was a monopoly of the degenerates and dregs of society.

My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus (pbuh).

It looks like too many in the West have found a new master, and it demands that they reorient what is valuable - we are watching from a guarded distance. We do not like the road this master is treading. We'll keep the old Master, though the world pass us by.
"And be not like those who forgot God, so He made them forget their own selves. Those are the transgressors." (59:19)

Peace.

“My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus ”

That’s a tired cliché, like many religious apologists you take the easy way by suggesting non-believers are motivated by some crass materialism or egocentric hedonism full of promiscuity, drugs etc. No, we (or a lot of us, obviously I can’t speak for everyone) simply don’t believe in your claims to have privileged access to some divine revealed truth (obviously that would only apply to Christianity and Islam which contain very specific statements about the course of history and God’s intervention in it, not or much less so to other belief systems like Hinduism, Buddhism or the varieties of ancient paganism). You can of course choose to react to this with moralizing about degenerates, but that rather misses the point and just seems to indicate that any attempt at dialogue is ultimately futile.

The truth hurts. I never said all materialists or secularists operate on this level, some most certainly do not. But I have no qualms stating that degeneracy is in full swing and up in your face and that post-modernists are demanding we also get Muslim societies on board. Even if I browse to an article about the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, I have to make sure I don't scroll too far down otherwise I'm presented with all sorts of human flesh to try to coax me into clicking it. When I went to my daughter's high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960's.

Nor do I buy the idea that materialists are purely objective when they look at religion; it gets in the way of one living life the way one wants to and people will reject belief that contradicts their ability to do what they like. Is that the only factor in their decision? No - but it cannot be simply cast aside.

You either choose to believe in a metaphysical reality or not. That's all fine and dandy and I don't debate this as it is silly to debate. But if It exists, and It has a will then your denial of It is irrelevant to the situation - if It created the universe and expects human beings to act in accordance with Its will...then we are ultimately slaves; the only question is - are you in compliance or rebellion? Keep in mind, It doesn't need you, and It has replaced plenty of people in the past with others to make an example.
"O mankind, you are destitute before God, while God is free of need, the Owner of Praise. If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation. And that is not difficult for God." (35:15-17)

"...And God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

One thing I have noticed in much of the West is that, somehow, it has pervaded the thinking of even some religious people that God is some kind of a chump, that He exists to pander to your needs, that He better figure out how to fit into your life and your schedule, and if He demands something you don't like, well then one's self-hood trumps all - God goes in the 'friend zone' or His number gets deleted permanently.

Now that's not stating He is not Forgiving and Clement - He most certainly is, the doors of repentance have always been open to those who recognize what they are in relation to Him. But obstinate and public rebellion - well, that's just putting an existential target on one's head.

As you said, there really is not much room for dialogue on this front - you either believe or you don't. It's your future, do with it as you will.

There is, however, plenty of rational and calm dialogue to be made in how we can accommodate each other in this world since we have to share it and live side by side. This needs to take place regardless of one's belief.

"My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus "

That's a tired cliché, like many religious apologists you take the easy way by suggesting non-believers are motivated by some crass materialism or egocentric hedonism full of promiscuity, drugs etc. No, we (or a lot of us, obviously I can't speak for everyone) simply don't believe in your claims to have privileged access to some divine revealed truth (obviously that would only apply to Christianity and Islam which contain very specific statements about the course of history and God's intervention in it, not or much less so to other belief systems like Hinduism, Buddhism or the varieties of ancient paganism). You can of course choose to react to this with moralizing about degenerates, but that rather misses the point and just seems to indicate that any attempt at dialogue is ultimately futile.

Hey G_R,

The truth hurts. I never said all materialists or secularists operate on this level, some most certainly do not. But I have no qualms stating that degeneracy is in full swing and up in your face and that post-modernists are demanding we also get Muslim societies on board. Even if I browse to an article about the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, I have to make sure I don’t scroll too far down otherwise I’m presented with all sorts of human flesh to try to coax me into clicking it. When I went to my daughter’s high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960′s.

Nor do I buy the idea that materialists are purely objective when they look at religion; it gets in the way of one living life the way one wants to and people will reject belief that contradicts their ability to do what they like. Is that the only factor in their decision? No – but it cannot be simply cast aside.

You either choose to believe in a metaphysical reality or not. That’s all fine and dandy and I don’t debate this as it is silly to debate. But if It exists, and It has a will then your denial of It is irrelevant to the situation – if It created the universe and expects human beings to act in accordance with Its will…then we are ultimately slaves; the only question is – are you in compliance or rebellion? Keep in mind, It doesn’t need you, and It has replaced plenty of people in the past with others to make an example.
“O mankind, you are destitute before God, while God is free of need, the Owner of Praise. If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation. And that is not difficult for God.” (35:15-17)

“…And God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you.” (47:38)

One thing I have noticed in much of the West is that, somehow, it has pervaded the thinking of even some religious people that God is some kind of a chump, that He exists to pander to your needs, that He better figure out how to fit into your life and your schedule, and if He demands something you don’t like, well then one’s self-hood trumps all – God goes in the ‘friend zone’ or His number gets deleted permanently.

Now that’s not stating He is not Forgiving and Clement – He most certainly is, the doors of repentance have always been open to those who recognize what they are in relation to Him. But obstinate and public rebellion – well, that’s just putting an existential target on one’s head.

As you said, there really is not much room for dialogue on this front – you either believe or you don’t. It’s your future, do with it as you will.

There is, however, plenty of rational and calm dialogue to be made in how we can accommodate each other in this world since we have to share it and live side by side. This needs to take place regardless of one’s belief.

"When I went to my daughter’s high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960′s."

While I'm not in favour of teenage girls dressing like sluts or sleeping around and also believe that much of Western pop culture today is decadent trash, I can't agree with your belief that somehow this means there is a clear moral decline from some golden age when people were pious and women dressed modestly. You mentioned the Umayyads. No doubt they presided over a civilization which had many admirable elements. It was also however a civilization that (like Greco-Roman antiquity before it) had slavery as a central element of its organization - and a kind of slavery that included at least the possibility of exploiting slaves for sex (that is raping them, to put it more explicitly). So sorry, while I dislike many aspects of modern culture myself, it's unconvincing to me that there is some clear superiority of traditional Islamic societies up to the 19th century regarding sexual morality.
As for metaphysical reality, well, I think you simplify matters too much. Personally I don't exclude the possibility of a God being the creator of the universe (but that of course raises the question "What is God?"), and while I'm more and more leaning towards real atheism, I find some sort of Deism acceptable. Ultimately these things are beyond our cognitive capabilities (and that was the position of ancient pagan intellectuals like Kelsos and Porphyry who believed in a transcendent God but thought not much could be said about it apart from the fact of its existence). But the plausibility or non-plausibility of God isn't the crucial issue for me. The issue is the question of revealed truth supposedly manifested in Islam's (and similarly with Christianity's) holy writings. And I've never heard a single reason why I should consider Islam's claims even remotely plausible. "God will punish you for your unbelief" may work as a threat, but it's not really a very sophisticated argument.

A few comments about Orthodox Christian anthropology seem relevant to this discussion. The first is that, according to St. Paul, there is neither Greek nor barbarian, man nor woman, but all are one. In the eventual patristic synthesis of Greek and Jewish thought, man is considered to be a single essence existing in many persons, and that it is the tragedy of sin that although we are of a single essence, we are so often at war with each other. The second is that, even given this oneness, the difference between man and woman is fundamental, with Jesus being called the New Adam and Mary the New Eve, Jesus being the bridegroom, the Church being the bride, God being the Father, the Church being the Mother who suffers in labour to give birth to her children. The wearing of the headscarf when praying publicly is one expression of this, as is the practice (followed on average) that men stand on one side of the church, in front of the icon of Jesus, while women stand on the other, in front of the icon of Mary. In my experience, even in those Orthodox churches in Western countries where these particular practices have faded away (or didn't necessarily exist in the first place, like in the mosaic from Santa Prassede), the importance of the fundamental difference is still acknowledged.

If I had to put my finger on why I have had respectful interactions with Muslims, I think it is that we share a sense of the sacred, as opposed to the wide-spread irreverence of the post-modern world. Your comment about the mother of Jesus illustrates this very vividly. People say that in the Middle East in living memory Christians and Muslims would often visit the same shrines, for different reasons. And even today, near Bethlehem, Christians and Muslims have a picnic together for the feast of St. George (http://travelpalestine.ps/which-event/calendar-of-events/st-georges-feast-al-khader-village/).

Hey TBRS,

the importance of the fundamental difference is still acknowledged

Indeed, this just by itself is a rebellion against the current order which wants to reduce us down to mere chemical machines that can simply be adjusted this way and that if we tweak enough genes or genitals – whatever the case may be. Your description of the roles of the Son of Mary (pbuh), his mother (pbuh) and the church are much appreciated.

People say that in the Middle East in living memory Christians and Muslims would often visit the same shrines, for different reasons.

It is at this point in history that we can try to encourage the best of historical interactions between Christians and Muslims going forward. As I’ve seen people like Mr. Shamir do. Or we can be mired in the worst of the past and scream at each other about conquests and crusades during the age of empires. We have an imperfect but workable international framework and our destructive capability is just too much to consider taking the wrong moves.

I like what I see in Jordan for instance. Is it perfect? Of course not, but the king is a descendant of the noble Prophetic household and born through the womb of a Christian mother. The government of Jordan can use fixing with corruption and what not, but it is fairly equitable and accommodating with its religious minorities (there is even the historic Armenian Quarter in Amman that was a refuge for Armenian Christians fleeing the slaughter in Turkey back in the day). And it has the backing of the traditional old-guard Sunni scholarship (I took some classes under a scholar who learned under the late Grand Mufti of Jordan). The stability of these governments should (if not encouraged) at least not be disturbed.

The truth hurts. I never said all materialists or secularists operate on this level, some most certainly do not. But I have no qualms stating that degeneracy is in full swing and up in your face and that post-modernists are demanding we also get Muslim societies on board. Even if I browse to an article about the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, I have to make sure I don't scroll too far down otherwise I'm presented with all sorts of human flesh to try to coax me into clicking it. When I went to my daughter's high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960's.

Nor do I buy the idea that materialists are purely objective when they look at religion; it gets in the way of one living life the way one wants to and people will reject belief that contradicts their ability to do what they like. Is that the only factor in their decision? No - but it cannot be simply cast aside.

You either choose to believe in a metaphysical reality or not. That's all fine and dandy and I don't debate this as it is silly to debate. But if It exists, and It has a will then your denial of It is irrelevant to the situation - if It created the universe and expects human beings to act in accordance with Its will...then we are ultimately slaves; the only question is - are you in compliance or rebellion? Keep in mind, It doesn't need you, and It has replaced plenty of people in the past with others to make an example.
"O mankind, you are destitute before God, while God is free of need, the Owner of Praise. If He wills, He can do away with you and bring forth a new creation. And that is not difficult for God." (35:15-17)

"...And God is free of need, while you are the destitute. And if you turn away, He will replace you with another people; and they will not be the likes of you." (47:38)

One thing I have noticed in much of the West is that, somehow, it has pervaded the thinking of even some religious people that God is some kind of a chump, that He exists to pander to your needs, that He better figure out how to fit into your life and your schedule, and if He demands something you don't like, well then one's self-hood trumps all - God goes in the 'friend zone' or His number gets deleted permanently.

Now that's not stating He is not Forgiving and Clement - He most certainly is, the doors of repentance have always been open to those who recognize what they are in relation to Him. But obstinate and public rebellion - well, that's just putting an existential target on one's head.

As you said, there really is not much room for dialogue on this front - you either believe or you don't. It's your future, do with it as you will.

There is, however, plenty of rational and calm dialogue to be made in how we can accommodate each other in this world since we have to share it and live side by side. This needs to take place regardless of one's belief.

Peace.

“When I went to my daughter’s high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960′s.”

While I’m not in favour of teenage girls dressing like sluts or sleeping around and also believe that much of Western pop culture today is decadent trash, I can’t agree with your belief that somehow this means there is a clear moral decline from some golden age when people were pious and women dressed modestly. You mentioned the Umayyads. No doubt they presided over a civilization which had many admirable elements. It was also however a civilization that (like Greco-Roman antiquity before it) had slavery as a central element of its organization – and a kind of slavery that included at least the possibility of exploiting slaves for sex (that is raping them, to put it more explicitly). So sorry, while I dislike many aspects of modern culture myself, it’s unconvincing to me that there is some clear superiority of traditional Islamic societies up to the 19th century regarding sexual morality.
As for metaphysical reality, well, I think you simplify matters too much. Personally I don’t exclude the possibility of a God being the creator of the universe (but that of course raises the question “What is God?”), and while I’m more and more leaning towards real atheism, I find some sort of Deism acceptable. Ultimately these things are beyond our cognitive capabilities (and that was the position of ancient pagan intellectuals like Kelsos and Porphyry who believed in a transcendent God but thought not much could be said about it apart from the fact of its existence). But the plausibility or non-plausibility of God isn’t the crucial issue for me. The issue is the question of revealed truth supposedly manifested in Islam’s (and similarly with Christianity’s) holy writings. And I’ve never heard a single reason why I should consider Islam’s claims even remotely plausible. “God will punish you for your unbelief” may work as a threat, but it’s not really a very sophisticated argument.

Post-modern man is an interesting animal. He assumes, had he been born in the time of slavery, he would experience the same revulsion as he does now - the answer is up in the air. My guess is that he would have done as the Romans did - when in Rome after all. A nubile Greek woman that he would have fancied at the slave market and had the coin for would likely have warmed his bed. His cultural norms are inherited and require no effort to form his morality on slavery - his disgust with it is perfunctory as is a European's disgust with eating cats for instance. If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds. The materialist philosophers of the past had plenty of chances to denounce it when it was all around them, but did no such thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

Sex with a slave in any society did not automatically imply rape any more than marriage automatically implies rape. Did it happen? Sure and some men also force themselves on their wives.

But religions like Christianity and Islam asked people to treat slaves with dignity and made emancipation a rewarded act and set the stage for eventual abolition (a goal that was in no small part also achieved well after the augmentation/replacement of human labor via the industrial revolution).

And all of this is moot anyway, for without some kind of transcendental code or purpose everything reverts back to materialism and the ascendant idea behind our purpose here; there is none. Slavery or raping slaves was never right or wrong, it just was. We are animals (complex chemical machines actually) - a young male lion will kill an older one and take over his pride by force and mate with his females - he will also kill off the cubs from the previous union in order to allow the females to be receptive to new impregnation. It was a part of our evolutionary journey and we need it no longer - if we do, the strong will enslave the weak again in order to ensure the perpetuation of their genetic code at the expense of genetic code of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

As far as your other concerns. Sure there are far more sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Again, I do not argue these things, but if you have questions, I will be happy to find answers for you. Please reach me at my Google account website above.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/3294854?hl=en

Peace and may God guide us all to the best in this world and the next.

How did we ever live without it. What an accomplishment for the world and human flourishing.

Indeed. There was a time when the most praiseworthy 'profession' one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life - the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres. The voice for the what exactly the Divine expects or demands out of us. In that time also, usually it was the singers and entertainers which were considered one of the most lowly professions, something that was a monopoly of the degenerates and dregs of society.

My how things have changed; the degenerates can claim to be more popular than Jesus (pbuh).

It looks like too many in the West have found a new master, and it demands that they reorient what is valuable - we are watching from a guarded distance. We do not like the road this master is treading. We'll keep the old Master, though the world pass us by.
"And be not like those who forgot God, so He made them forget their own selves. Those are the transgressors." (59:19)

Peace.

“There was a time when the most praiseworthy ‘profession’ one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life – the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres.”

Yeah, those were the days.

Those were the days when the priesthood ate better than anybody else.

But at least they kept open “the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres.”

Humans, being as they are, are not angels and sure many abused their power just as they do in governance. We were warned about this:
"O you who believe - indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of God. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God - give them tidings of a painful punishment." (9:34)

I cannot speak for others, but our tradition has always been extremely cautious of the scholars that are found at the door of the rulers and worldly sovereigns - they were dubbed ulema ul-sultan (scholars of the sultans). The best men from our tradition spent time either in government jails or were tortured or were exiled for speaking up for the rights of the Muslim populace whether against physical oppression or unfair taxes or public indecency. It was almost a right of passage.

You will not see our scholars draped in fancy shining attire, not in golden crowns or any such things. Asceticism and the smashing of the ego is the way of the scholars of the best of our tradition:
http://www.ibnpercy.com/the-masjid-mosque-of-shaykh-murabit-ul-hajj/

Yes, these people still exist and they are the custodians of the faith.

"There was a time when the most praiseworthy ‘profession’ one could go into was that of the religious scholar. This was true in the Eastern religious as well as the West. The Hindu pandit or Buddhist monk or Muslim Imam or Catholic priest (heck, even the village shaman) was the living embodiment of the most important thing in life – the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres."

Yeah, those were the days.

Those were the days when the priesthood ate better than anybody else.

But at least they kept open "the bridge between the spiritual and worldly spheres."

Between meals.

Hey vinteuil,

Humans, being as they are, are not angels and sure many abused their power just as they do in governance. We were warned about this:
“O you who believe – indeed many of the scholars and the monks devour the wealth of people unjustly and avert [them] from the way of God. And those who hoard gold and silver and spend it not in the way of God – give them tidings of a painful punishment.” (9:34)

I cannot speak for others, but our tradition has always been extremely cautious of the scholars that are found at the door of the rulers and worldly sovereigns – they were dubbed ulema ul-sultan (scholars of the sultans). The best men from our tradition spent time either in government jails or were tortured or were exiled for speaking up for the rights of the Muslim populace whether against physical oppression or unfair taxes or public indecency. It was almost a right of passage.

You will not see our scholars draped in fancy shining attire, not in golden crowns or any such things. Asceticism and the smashing of the ego is the way of the scholars of the best of our tradition:

"When I went to my daughter’s high school to pick her up, I do not hesitate to state that far too many girls were dressed as whores by any yardstick before the 1960′s."

While I'm not in favour of teenage girls dressing like sluts or sleeping around and also believe that much of Western pop culture today is decadent trash, I can't agree with your belief that somehow this means there is a clear moral decline from some golden age when people were pious and women dressed modestly. You mentioned the Umayyads. No doubt they presided over a civilization which had many admirable elements. It was also however a civilization that (like Greco-Roman antiquity before it) had slavery as a central element of its organization - and a kind of slavery that included at least the possibility of exploiting slaves for sex (that is raping them, to put it more explicitly). So sorry, while I dislike many aspects of modern culture myself, it's unconvincing to me that there is some clear superiority of traditional Islamic societies up to the 19th century regarding sexual morality.
As for metaphysical reality, well, I think you simplify matters too much. Personally I don't exclude the possibility of a God being the creator of the universe (but that of course raises the question "What is God?"), and while I'm more and more leaning towards real atheism, I find some sort of Deism acceptable. Ultimately these things are beyond our cognitive capabilities (and that was the position of ancient pagan intellectuals like Kelsos and Porphyry who believed in a transcendent God but thought not much could be said about it apart from the fact of its existence). But the plausibility or non-plausibility of God isn't the crucial issue for me. The issue is the question of revealed truth supposedly manifested in Islam's (and similarly with Christianity's) holy writings. And I've never heard a single reason why I should consider Islam's claims even remotely plausible. "God will punish you for your unbelief" may work as a threat, but it's not really a very sophisticated argument.

Hey G_R,

Post-modern man is an interesting animal. He assumes, had he been born in the time of slavery, he would experience the same revulsion as he does now – the answer is up in the air. My guess is that he would have done as the Romans did – when in Rome after all. A nubile Greek woman that he would have fancied at the slave market and had the coin for would likely have warmed his bed. His cultural norms are inherited and require no effort to form his morality on slavery – his disgust with it is perfunctory as is a European’s disgust with eating cats for instance. If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds. The materialist philosophers of the past had plenty of chances to denounce it when it was all around them, but did no such thing:

Sex with a slave in any society did not automatically imply rape any more than marriage automatically implies rape. Did it happen? Sure and some men also force themselves on their wives.

But religions like Christianity and Islam asked people to treat slaves with dignity and made emancipation a rewarded act and set the stage for eventual abolition (a goal that was in no small part also achieved well after the augmentation/replacement of human labor via the industrial revolution).

And all of this is moot anyway, for without some kind of transcendental code or purpose everything reverts back to materialism and the ascendant idea behind our purpose here; there is none. Slavery or raping slaves was never right or wrong, it just was. We are animals (complex chemical machines actually) – a young male lion will kill an older one and take over his pride by force and mate with his females – he will also kill off the cubs from the previous union in order to allow the females to be receptive to new impregnation. It was a part of our evolutionary journey and we need it no longer – if we do, the strong will enslave the weak again in order to ensure the perpetuation of their genetic code at the expense of genetic code of others:

As far as your other concerns. Sure there are far more sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Again, I do not argue these things, but if you have questions, I will be happy to find answers for you. Please reach me at my Google account website above.

"If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds"

You may have a point about evangelical Christians and the like, but I'm unaware that Islam has ever produced an abolitionist movement (let alone a successful one). I don't deny however that Islam's teachings on slavery were at least *somewhat* more humane and egalitarian than had been the case in the ancient world.I'll have to see if I take up your offer for arguments about the existence of God (which I don't deny - or affirm - in principle though...as I stated the issue for me is rather the credibility of specific revelations), but thanks for it.

Post-modern man is an interesting animal. He assumes, had he been born in the time of slavery, he would experience the same revulsion as he does now - the answer is up in the air. My guess is that he would have done as the Romans did - when in Rome after all. A nubile Greek woman that he would have fancied at the slave market and had the coin for would likely have warmed his bed. His cultural norms are inherited and require no effort to form his morality on slavery - his disgust with it is perfunctory as is a European's disgust with eating cats for instance. If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds. The materialist philosophers of the past had plenty of chances to denounce it when it was all around them, but did no such thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

Sex with a slave in any society did not automatically imply rape any more than marriage automatically implies rape. Did it happen? Sure and some men also force themselves on their wives.

But religions like Christianity and Islam asked people to treat slaves with dignity and made emancipation a rewarded act and set the stage for eventual abolition (a goal that was in no small part also achieved well after the augmentation/replacement of human labor via the industrial revolution).

And all of this is moot anyway, for without some kind of transcendental code or purpose everything reverts back to materialism and the ascendant idea behind our purpose here; there is none. Slavery or raping slaves was never right or wrong, it just was. We are animals (complex chemical machines actually) - a young male lion will kill an older one and take over his pride by force and mate with his females - he will also kill off the cubs from the previous union in order to allow the females to be receptive to new impregnation. It was a part of our evolutionary journey and we need it no longer - if we do, the strong will enslave the weak again in order to ensure the perpetuation of their genetic code at the expense of genetic code of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

As far as your other concerns. Sure there are far more sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Again, I do not argue these things, but if you have questions, I will be happy to find answers for you. Please reach me at my Google account website above.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/3294854?hl=en

Peace and may God guide us all to the best in this world and the next.

“If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds”

You may have a point about evangelical Christians and the like, but I’m unaware that Islam has ever produced an abolitionist movement (let alone a successful one). I don’t deny however that Islam’s teachings on slavery were at least *somewhat* more humane and egalitarian than had been the case in the ancient world.
I’ll have to see if I take up your offer for arguments about the existence of God (which I don’t deny – or affirm – in principle though…as I stated the issue for me is rather the credibility of specific revelations), but thanks for it.

There was no parallel abolitionist movement in the Islamic world - but it came directly from some of the thinkers and the Muslim scholarship (who saw there was so much rampant abuse and neglect of the protections enshrined in Islamic law that they thought it best to just drop the entire institution):
“To Tunisia [in 1846] belongs the honour of having been the first to promulgate a general edict of emancipation for black slaves (ipso facto, of Muslim slaves: there were practically no white slaves in the Regency). The preamble to this decision, which was approved by the two highest dignitaries of the Hanafi and Maliki rites in the country, is worth dwelling on: in it, slavery is declared to be lawful in principle but regrettable in its consequences. Of the three considerations particularized, two are of a religious nature, the third political (maslaha siy siyya): the initial enslaving of the people concerned comes under suspicion of illegality by reason of the present-day expansion of Islam in their countries; masters no longer comply with the rules of good treatment which regulate their rights and shelter them from wrong-doing…At Istanbul, the first imperial firmans against the slave-trade date from the period of the Tanzimât, under Abd al-Madjid and especially from the years of close understanding with France and Great Britain…Therefore history demonstrates that at the eve of XIX the Islamic world was ready, as well as European nations, to formally cancel slavery as a legal institute [3];”
https://www.idosi.org/wjihc/wjihc3(4)13/3.pdf

And the sovereigns (namely the Ottomans that outlawed the procurement of any new slaves by war - thus shutting off the tap) and yes, this was in discussion with European powers. You have to remember, the experience of slavery in Muslim lands was quite different that that of the West. Muslim slaves achieved unprecedented status; I know of know other people that were ruled by their slaves (the Mamluks [slave-soldiers] of Egypt and the Levant controlled the core Muslim lands for centuries) - do you? Also, slave populations were absorbed within a generation or two into the local population.

more humane and egalitarian than had been the case in the ancient world

I think Ronald Segal (who wrote the most comprehensive work on the African slave trade in the Muslim world) said it fairly precisely:
"The relationship between slave and master in Islam is a very different relationship from that between the American plantation labourer and owner. It was a much more personalized relationship and relatively benevolent. Everything here is relative -- being a slave is being a slave and it shouldn't be romanticized."

This is actually a fairly good academic summary (sourece for the above quote):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

I disagree with some points, but they are minor quibbles (like it leaves out that devshirme and castration are outlawed by Islam, etc.) - it is well worth the read, fairly balanced and comprehensive.

Peace.

Note: Don't get me wrong, by the way - sometimes I may come across a bit rough, but it's usually pushing back at denigration or outright fabrications of my faith or traditional people in general by people who think they are the apex of humanity. I feel very blessed to live in the time that I do (warts and all) - God placed me in this era and not another for a reason and to feel revulsion at that is the height of ingratitude - and I do hope the best for the people of the West whether I get to stay here or not. One of the benefits being I can converse amiably with a German stranger across the world instead of us gripping our spears and staring at each other grimly through our visors across a blood-drenched battle plain. :)

"If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds"

You may have a point about evangelical Christians and the like, but I'm unaware that Islam has ever produced an abolitionist movement (let alone a successful one). I don't deny however that Islam's teachings on slavery were at least *somewhat* more humane and egalitarian than had been the case in the ancient world.I'll have to see if I take up your offer for arguments about the existence of God (which I don't deny - or affirm - in principle though...as I stated the issue for me is rather the credibility of specific revelations), but thanks for it.

Hey G_R,

There was no parallel abolitionist movement in the Islamic world – but it came directly from some of the thinkers and the Muslim scholarship (who saw there was so much rampant abuse and neglect of the protections enshrined in Islamic law that they thought it best to just drop the entire institution):
“To Tunisia [in 1846] belongs the honour of having been the first to promulgate a general edict of emancipation for black slaves (ipso facto, of Muslim slaves: there were practically no white slaves in the Regency). The preamble to this decision, which was approved by the two highest dignitaries of the Hanafi and Maliki rites in the country, is worth dwelling on: in it, slavery is declared to be lawful in principle but regrettable in its consequences. Of the three considerations particularized, two are of a religious nature, the third political (maslaha siy siyya): the initial enslaving of the people concerned comes under suspicion of illegality by reason of the present-day expansion of Islam in their countries; masters no longer comply with the rules of good treatment which regulate their rights and shelter them from wrong-doing…At Istanbul, the first imperial firmans against the slave-trade date from the period of the Tanzimât, under Abd al-Madjid and especially from the years of close understanding with France and Great Britain…Therefore history demonstrates that at the eve of XIX the Islamic world was ready, as well as European nations, to formally cancel slavery as a legal institute [3];”

And the sovereigns (namely the Ottomans that outlawed the procurement of any new slaves by war – thus shutting off the tap) and yes, this was in discussion with European powers. You have to remember, the experience of slavery in Muslim lands was quite different that that of the West. Muslim slaves achieved unprecedented status; I know of know other people that were ruled by their slaves (the Mamluks [slave-soldiers] of Egypt and the Levant controlled the core Muslim lands for centuries) – do you? Also, slave populations were absorbed within a generation or two into the local population.

more humane and egalitarian than had been the case in the ancient world

I think Ronald Segal (who wrote the most comprehensive work on the African slave trade in the Muslim world) said it fairly precisely:
“The relationship between slave and master in Islam is a very different relationship from that between the American plantation labourer and owner. It was a much more personalized relationship and relatively benevolent. Everything here is relative — being a slave is being a slave and it shouldn’t be romanticized.”

This is actually a fairly good academic summary (sourece for the above quote):

I disagree with some points, but they are minor quibbles (like it leaves out that devshirme and castration are outlawed by Islam, etc.) – it is well worth the read, fairly balanced and comprehensive.

Peace.

Note: Don’t get me wrong, by the way – sometimes I may come across a bit rough, but it’s usually pushing back at denigration or outright fabrications of my faith or traditional people in general by people who think they are the apex of humanity. I feel very blessed to live in the time that I do (warts and all) – God placed me in this era and not another for a reason and to feel revulsion at that is the height of ingratitude – and I do hope the best for the people of the West whether I get to stay here or not. One of the benefits being I can converse amiably with a German stranger across the world instead of us gripping our spears and staring at each other grimly through our visors across a blood-drenched battle plain.

Post-modern man is an interesting animal. He assumes, had he been born in the time of slavery, he would experience the same revulsion as he does now - the answer is up in the air. My guess is that he would have done as the Romans did - when in Rome after all. A nubile Greek woman that he would have fancied at the slave market and had the coin for would likely have warmed his bed. His cultural norms are inherited and require no effort to form his morality on slavery - his disgust with it is perfunctory as is a European's disgust with eating cats for instance. If anything, the credit for abolition of slavery world-wide goes mostly to religious people that fought it and formulated an argument against it based on religious grounds. The materialist philosophers of the past had plenty of chances to denounce it when it was all around them, but did no such thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml

Sex with a slave in any society did not automatically imply rape any more than marriage automatically implies rape. Did it happen? Sure and some men also force themselves on their wives.

But religions like Christianity and Islam asked people to treat slaves with dignity and made emancipation a rewarded act and set the stage for eventual abolition (a goal that was in no small part also achieved well after the augmentation/replacement of human labor via the industrial revolution).

And all of this is moot anyway, for without some kind of transcendental code or purpose everything reverts back to materialism and the ascendant idea behind our purpose here; there is none. Slavery or raping slaves was never right or wrong, it just was. We are animals (complex chemical machines actually) - a young male lion will kill an older one and take over his pride by force and mate with his females - he will also kill off the cubs from the previous union in order to allow the females to be receptive to new impregnation. It was a part of our evolutionary journey and we need it no longer - if we do, the strong will enslave the weak again in order to ensure the perpetuation of their genetic code at the expense of genetic code of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg

As far as your other concerns. Sure there are far more sophisticated arguments for the existence of God. Again, I do not argue these things, but if you have questions, I will be happy to find answers for you. Please reach me at my Google account website above.
https://support.google.com/mail/answer/3294854?hl=en

Peace and may God guide us all to the best in this world and the next.

Correct. From a materialist and evolutionary perspective (neither of which I espouse) - slavery and rape is not wrong and in fact may entail a selective advantage in Darwinian genetic survival. From this framework the question should actually be; why shouldn't the strong rape the weak? This happens in nature all the time - the strong males keep weaker males away from their females and even steal their females from them. It ensures both that the strong perpetuate their genes and that the weak have their genes admixed with the strong for future generations - consent is irrelevant.

Correct. From a materialist and evolutionary perspective (neither of which I espouse) – slavery and rape is not wrong and in fact may entail a selective advantage in Darwinian genetic survival. From this framework the question should actually be; why shouldn’t the strong rape the weak? This happens in nature all the time – the strong males keep weaker males away from their females and even steal their females from them. It ensures both that the strong perpetuate their genes and that the weak have their genes admixed with the strong for future generations – consent is irrelevant.

Correct. From a materialist and evolutionary perspective (neither of which I espouse) - slavery and rape is not wrong and in fact may entail a selective advantage in Darwinian genetic survival. From this framework the question should actually be; why shouldn't the strong rape the weak? This happens in nature all the time - the strong males keep weaker males away from their females and even steal their females from them. It ensures both that the strong perpetuate their genes and that the weak have their genes admixed with the strong for future generations - consent is irrelevant.

That said, the South Korean marriage is an urban legend. Putin's younger daughter is the gf of a Dutch businessman who used to work at Gazprom. The elder daughter is married to Kirill Shalamov, the son of a Jewish oligarch (the Trump comparisons keep piling on).

Supposedly they had dated for over 10 years starting from high school. Those details are hard to outright fabricate.

[…] that that the dissident right has a tendency toward binary thinking The recent terrorist attacks in Saint-Petersburg and Sweden Moderate Kazakh Rebels, the rise of radical Islam in Central Asia The Triumph of […]

Blogroll

This is not so much meant to be comprehensive as to illustrate the themes and individual thinkers whom I follow and am inspired by.

I do not bother including any MSM outlets, since I’m sure they can do just fine without my publicity.

Blogs which I consider to be particularly good and/or prominent are highlighted in bold, and blogs that appear to have gone dormant appear at the end in italics. While I try to keep these things objective, if you include me in your blogroll that does vastly increase the chances that I’ll reciprocate.